Jump to content

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Doctor Who soundtracks

The OR on all of them is acceptable as it helps to identify where the tracks were used.

Could you give more detail of what the issue is. Is someone removing OR that you think is necessary for an article and why do you think that material that goes against Original Research rules should be kept? Please note that the reason needs to be a strong one because WP:OR is one of the core policies of Wikipedia.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes someone called "Etron81" is removing it and it is very necessary for all the articles "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack", "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3","Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4" and "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4: The Specials" because someone could be scouring their Doctor Who collection trying to find the pieces of music, when in fact, a non-main episode, i.e. one that it appears in, but not the one associated with it, has it in clearly enough to be heard.

Have you tried, I don't know, talking to Etron? At all? Someguy1221 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Tried so just now. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI you posted your message on Etron's user page. It belongs on their talk page otherwise they might not see it. I have moved it for you. MarnetteD | Talk 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question at the Doctor Who Project talk page and got a response there that this was OR that needed to be removed. After I started a dissenting opinion came in so I have stopped editing to see if consensus could be reached - I was not aware of this discussion here until just now. In my opinion there is a lot of OR here - especially notes that state "variation of", "a few notes used in", etc. that are VERY subjective and should be removed if it's an obvious reuse of a cue I would have no objection to it's inclusion. I will not edit any of these articles for OR until consensus is reached here - some of my edits have been reverted by others now. Etron81 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, Etron, because I very strongly believe that they are completely fine. But also, not as important but I still want to point it out, I made some of the changes that you are removing myself. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC). P.S. I have just noticed that my reverts were only on Series 5 onwards. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this kinda of OR minutia is more fitting for the Doctor Who wiki than a more general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Perhaps we should invite some non-involved people to comment? Etron81 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am opening a request for comment so that we can get more input into this issue. On these pages, should the "episodes used in" column only list what is listed in the liner notes (or other reliable sources), or can users recognise melodies and add them? My view that it should be the former, as the latter is very subjective at time, especially as motifs can be used in multiple pieces. Etron81 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC) I think that even if a motif comes as part of two tracks (i.e. the musical sting at the beginning of "Westminster Bridge" and "All The Strange, Strange Creatures (The Trailer Music)"), both of those tracks would be counted as being used simultaneously, but maybe with a note saying, "At the same time as ...", so that a reader will know it's a part of two songs. P.S. Do leave a comment on my talk page if that makes no sense. James Morris-Wyatt (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think that there is entirely too much trivial (and uncited) minutiae within the Doctor Who articles, from the uncited nods to prior episodes/seasons/incarnations to stuff like this. Find a source for where each piece was used - and this is important - and why it is important to an understanding of the article or subject. Not only does it have to be cited, but it needs to be referenced as to its importance within the article. We cannot use the editor's fervent belief that it is important.
Do I think there could be an article about Doctor Who music used within the series? Maybe. Do I think every track used per episode or arc needs to be shoehorned into the article? Absolutely not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple more edits removing unsourced notes have been made by another person: [1] [2] Etron81 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Rule for including in List of Tea Party politicians

There is a question about what rule should be used to include people in List of Tea Party politicians. Is it enough that a tea party organization endorsed the candidate? Or must a reliable source say that the person is affiliated with the tea party? Please post any comments at the talk page (not here) so the discussion is co-located. --Noleander (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Periyar River Source

Hi. Can someone clarify on whether WP:OR is being used in the following example.

The Periyar is one of the rivers flowing through the state of Kerala in India. The Mullaperiyar dam is built along the upper course of the river, about 60-65 km from the source. There are a couple of references (1,2) which state that the catchment area of the Mullaperiyar dam lies entirely in Kerala. Would it constitute WP:OR to conclude from the above that the source of the Periyar lies in Kerala?

Argument for considering it as OR – Since the references do not directly state that the source of the Periyar is in Kerala, it would constitute OR to conclude so.

Argument against considering it as OR - By the making a statement that the catchment area of the dam lies entirely in Kerala, the authors/officials are by the very definition of catchment area also making a statement that the extent or the area of land from where surface water from rain and melting snow or ice flows to the Mullaperiyar dam lies entirely in Kerala. It's not an opinion or original research, it's what the authors/officials are saying. Therefore, they also are stating that the source of Periyar is in Kerala. It is implicit in their statement about the catchment area of Mullaperiyar dam by the definition of catchment area.

An analogy would be if an author states that some 10-digit number is a prime number, he/she is also in turn stating implicitly that the same 10-digit number is not divisible by 7. It doesn't need to be specifically stated. We can’t say that there is no reliable published source for the idea/fact that the said 10-digit number is not divisible by 7 given that there is a source stating that the same number is a prime number.

Your thoughts please.Ashinpt (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A tricky one. The sources certainly imply that that the origin of the Periyar is in Kerala, but don't actually say so explicitly. I note that our Periyar (river) article currently asserts that the source of the Periyar is in Tamil Nadu, and that there has been an ongoing debate about this on the talk page. Without looking through all this, I'd point out that it is entirely possible that there may be some reliable sources which say Kerala, and other equally-reliable sources that say Tamil Nadu - in which case it isn't for us to decide one way or another, but instead to report that sources (regarding the source!) differ. Have you considered this as an option? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. There was some confusion on whether the above given references can be used at all or not. That’s why I put the question here on the board. The source of the Periyar is, by the definition of catchment area, a part of the catchment of Mullaperiyar dam, since water from the source will flow into the dam. If the source of the Periyar is in Tamil Nadu, it would mean that the catchment area of the Mullaperiyar dam will include some area in Tamil Nadu (the area being around the source of Periyar). Now, if it is being stated that the catchment of the Mullaperiyar dam does not fall in Tamil Nadu at all, then it implies that the source of the Periyar cannot be in Tamil Nadu. Actually, by the definition of catchment area, not only the Periyar, but all its tributaries and sub-tributaries etc. up to the Mullaperiyar dam originate in Kerala. In other words, none of the water that reaches the Mullaperiyar dam comes from Tamil Nadu. That is a much stronger statement.
There is a proposal in the Periyar talk page that does what you are saying. There hasn’t been any consensus on how to go forward as yet. I have my own thoughts on it. But here, I just wanted to discuss whether or not using the given sources can be considered as WP:OR or not. - Ashinpt (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Long War Journal

I and another editor disagree on this section. In my opinion, the text is synthesis, because the editor is putting his own interpretation on the sources, i.e. the sources don't appear to be drawing the conclusion that the text says that they are. The IP disagrees. Talk page discussions are here and here. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the appropriate references are to Kaus (no. 46 of the current article) and to Finer (no. 47). Those references support a sentence along the lines of "The website has been criticized for not always being accurate", and that sentence could appear (with the references) at the end of the "Traffic and use" section.--Gautier lebon (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Reference no. 46 is criticism of Roggio's blog before he teamed with other to start the news website. The current text tries to use it to justify current criticism of the site. I checked no. 47 and don't seen criticism in that article of the site. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Costa_Rican

Not much citing, all original research.


Doctor Who soundtracks

The OR on all of them is acceptable as it helps to identify where the tracks were used.

Could you give more detail of what the issue is. Is someone removing OR that you think is necessary for an article and why do you think that material that goes against Original Research rules should be kept? Please note that the reason needs to be a strong one because WP:OR is one of the core policies of Wikipedia.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes someone called "Etron81" is removing it and it is very necessary for all the articles "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack", "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3","Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4" and "Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4: The Specials" because someone could be scouring their Doctor Who collection trying to find the pieces of music, when in fact, a non-main episode, i.e. one that it appears in, but not the one associated with it, has it in clearly enough to be heard.

Have you tried, I don't know, talking to Etron? At all? Someguy1221 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Tried so just now. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI you posted your message on Etron's user page. It belongs on their talk page otherwise they might not see it. I have moved it for you. MarnetteD | Talk 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question at the Doctor Who Project talk page and got a response there that this was OR that needed to be removed. After I started a dissenting opinion came in so I have stopped editing to see if consensus could be reached - I was not aware of this discussion here until just now. In my opinion there is a lot of OR here - especially notes that state "variation of", "a few notes used in", etc. that are VERY subjective and should be removed if it's an obvious reuse of a cue I would have no objection to it's inclusion. I will not edit any of these articles for OR until consensus is reached here - some of my edits have been reverted by others now. Etron81 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, Etron, because I very strongly believe that they are completely fine. But also, not as important but I still want to point it out, I made some of the changes that you are removing myself. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC). P.S. I have just noticed that my reverts were only on Series 5 onwards. 86.147.124.98 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this kinda of OR minutia is more fitting for the Doctor Who wiki than a more general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Perhaps we should invite some non-involved people to comment? Etron81 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am opening a request for comment so that we can get more input into this issue. On these pages, should the "episodes used in" column only list what is listed in the liner notes (or other reliable sources), or can users recognise melodies and add them? My view that it should be the former, as the latter is very subjective at time, especially as motifs can be used in multiple pieces. Etron81 (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC) I think that even if a motif comes as part of two tracks (i.e. the musical sting at the beginning of "Westminster Bridge" and "All The Strange, Strange Creatures (The Trailer Music)"), both of those tracks would be counted as being used simultaneously, but maybe with a note saying, "At the same time as ...", so that a reader will know it's a part of two songs. P.S. Do leave a comment on my talk page if that makes no sense. James Morris-Wyatt (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think that there is entirely too much trivial (and uncited) minutiae within the Doctor Who articles, from the uncited nods to prior episodes/seasons/incarnations to stuff like this. Find a source for where each piece was used - and this is important - and why it is important to an understanding of the article or subject. Not only does it have to be cited, but it needs to be referenced as to its importance within the article. We cannot use the editor's fervent belief that it is important.
Do I think there could be an article about Doctor Who music used within the series? Maybe. Do I think every track used per episode or arc needs to be shoehorned into the article? Absolutely not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple more edits removing unsourced notes have been made by another person: [3] [4] Etron81 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Politics of Jesus

I'd like some eyeballs experienced in spotting OR to have a look at this article section:

Christian right > Politics of Jesus

Besides the generally weak tie-in to the parent article, this seems like synth to me. Belchfire-TALK 06:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm always in support of more eyes, but I do want to point out the discussion on the talk page, which includes links to sources, only some of which have been used. I believe this would be relevant to ascertaining whether there's synthesis going on here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bachir Gemayel

I am somewhat unsure as to which venue I should report this to, however, an editor 86.52.49.139 (and now: User:Eidhad) continues to add "unsourced" content (with a POV approach) to the Bachir Gemayel article. I have repeatedly reverted their edits, as they are sourceless and don't appear to be written in a neutral manner. It's a large chunk of text, doesn't seem to be based on fact - rather, it sounds more like a person's own synthesis. Here's the latest revision of the article, with the text. Thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Gupta research findings

Sigpro47 has been adding primary research findings all featuring Gupta R S as an author and all relating to proteins found in Cyanobacteria and families within the Cyanobactetia as in here, here and here. I have not yet raised the issue on the editor's talk page but it does seem to be an issue of an author promoting his/her own research publications rather than trying to improve Wikipedia. I am happy to discuss this with the editor but would value the views of others before starting to raise the issue , particularly if there is not agreed to be any basis in my concerns.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now raised the issue at the editors talk page.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education document and Preston University

I'd like some additional opinions regarding an addition I made in the article Preston University. On my talk page, another user has suggested that the contents involved original research, as interpretation of a legal document (WP:PRIMARY). I disagree, as I consider the content I added to be "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge".

Here's the paragraph at issue:

In December 2011 the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) refused Preston's application for approval to operate in the state of California. The reason given for denial included Preston's failure to inform the BPPE about "cease and desist" orders it had received in the states of Wyoming and Alabama, as well as insufficient information about the institution's education programs and resources.
Source cited is: "Statement of Issues In the Matter of Preston University, Case No. 997878" (PDF). California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education. May 1, 2012.

Here's the discussion that has occurred so far:

Hi, Orlady, the material you added to the article violates WP:PRIMARY as it requires interpretation of the legal document. Not surprisingly, based on a quick search, I could find no secondary source about what happened in December 2011, or in May 2012 when the Statement of Issues was filed.
It's an odd document and I am unfamiliar with the regulations involved. The document says the application was denied; yet the purpose of the hearing appears to obtain a denial from the dirrector of the BPPE. I'm assuming Wenzel acts as a representative of DCA seeking an "official" denial from the BPPE itself. The regulations may spell this process out, but I don't intend to read them, nor do I think it appropriate for us to interpret them, anyway.
I think the material is clearly important to the article, but I can't get past our policy. What would you like to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 August 2012
The document is a legal document, but the statements I added to the article are statements of fact by the BPPE, describing its past actions. Specifically, it says that BPPE denied the application and gives the date of denial (I didn't include the details about the submission of the application) and it gives the reasons for denial (a long list; I was selective in listing them). This is not an interpretation of legal arguments or a court decision. The portions of the document that I used could just as easily have been issued as a BPPE press release. This use is consistent with the Wikipedia policy that states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you downplay the amount of interpretation required. Putting aside which facts you chose, which is a form of interpretation, what troubles me the most is if the December 11 action was a true denial, what is the hearing for? If, OTOH, it was an initial denial that must be formally approved by the BPPE director, to some extent what we are saying in the article is misleading, if not affirmatively, at least by omission. If it were a less experienced editor who inserted the material, I would have reverted and asked you to justify the material on the article Talk page, but I chose this less confrontational route out of deference to your considerable experience generally and with this article in particular.
Unless you have a better idea, how about if I raise the issue at WP:RSN?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
FTR, I didn't find this document in the recesses of the deep web. It is listed at the BPPE website on a page entitled "Disciplinary Actions". According to that page, a "Statement of Issues" is "Charges filed against an applicant to deny an approval to operate due to alleged violations of the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 and other applicable law." The statement was issued by BPPE describing the action that BPPE took and it is addressed not to the head of BPPE, but rather to the head of the Department of Consumer Affairs. I made no attempt to interpret the appeal/adjudication process that the document relates to, but rather I simply described what BPPE said it had decided. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Further to the above, it is clear (because BPPE says so) that in December 2011 BPPE decided not to grant Preston's application. Without knowing the particulars of the approval/appeal process, it should be obvious that the BPPE or the Department of Consumer Affairs could change its mind and grant approval. Further, since there is no indication that Preston ever had approval in the past (indeed, since BPPE wasn't authorized until 2009 and didn't exist until 2010, the prior state approval process ended in 2007, and Preston moved to California circa 2009, it's almost impossible for it to have been approved earlier), the denial was simply a refusal to grant a request and not a revocation of anything. --Orlady (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that the Statement of Issues was directed to the Director of DCA, not someone at BPPE, but that and your description of what the 2009 Act did reinforces my point that this is tricky stuff. At bottom, you are plucking a statement from a legal document in a process we don't fully understand and treating it as fact, even though it appears to be questionable based on the Prayer.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The content I added to the article does not get into the legalities of state approval of educational institutions of California or the convoluted history of BPPE and its predecessor agencies, nor does it attempt to sort out the legalities of the "Statement of Issues". It states that BPPE refused the application for approval. That's based on a pretty straightforward factual statement at the top of page 2 of the document cited. The source uses the word "denied"; I chose to substitute "refused", which means the same thing but seems softer. The article also does not include the detail that Preston applied as an "Institution Not Accredited"; that might be interesting, but its inclusion would require some interpretation of the categories of BPPE approval.
The document has a long list (on pages 9 to 11) of "Causes for Denial of Application", subtitled "(Incomplete Application)". The term "incomplete application" has regulatory relevance, but it's not particularly informative as a summary of the reasons. IMO, listing all of the reasons would be undue emphasis. Therefore, as you correctly point out, I selected items from the list. Some items on the list did not seem as consequential as others (e.g., "incorrect application form") and some seemed highly legalistic or technical, thus requiring interpretation that verges on original research. I selected the information about the "cease and desist" orders for several reasons, including that it helps connect this particular manifestation of Preston University with the institution described earlier in the article (and supports statements made earlier in the article about ceasing business in Wyoming and Alabama) and it seems more consequential than some other reasons given. The words "insufficient information about the institution's education programs and resources" were intended to encapsulate several other items on the list, including "instruction and degrees offered", "description of each educational program", "financial resources and statements", "faculty information", and "libraries and other learning resources". --Orlady (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The word refused is not softer but (IMO) wrong. Refusing an application sounds like refusing to even process it. Although I understand your reasoning in the rest of your comments, I am not persuaded that we can include the material based on this source. Although not completely happy with saying anything, I have a compromise proposal:

According to a Statement of Issues filed on May 1, 2012, by the Deputy Bureau Chief of the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, Department of Consumer Affairs (Bureau), on December 9, 2011, the Bureau denied an Application for Approval to Operate as an Institution Not Accredited, which Preston University submitted in July 2010.

--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I consider the proposed "compromise" to be bureaucratese (and, thus, not particularly informative), so I'm here to invite broader discussion. Please discuss! --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please summarize all that... what exactly are you trying to say, and what exactly does the document say? Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

See the indented text at the beginning of this discussion to see what I added to the article. The main point to be conveyed is that the institution sought approval in California and was turned down. I also want to indicate the reasons for the rejection. Since we periodically encounter users who say that the different outfits called "Preston University" are independent of each other, I also wanted to mention the indication that the California agency referred to Wyoming and Alabama in its description of its decision.
The California agency document is 12 pages long. It's formatted like a legal brief, apparently authored by the BPPE agency staff and the state attorney general, and addressed to the state director of consumer affairs. It looks like a pleading in connection with a request for administrative review of the BPPE decision. Much of the document is an exposition of various laws and regulations; I've ignored that part. The portions used in the Wikipedia article are the parts (page numbers indicated above) that make statements of fact regarding actions already taken by BPPE. No attempt has been made to interpret or describe the legal proceeding that this document relates to. --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The document gets into the quagmire of California administrative law. It is filed by the "complainant", who is part of the Department of Consumer Affairs, but specifically connected to the education agency. The California Attorney General represents the complainant. The regulations referred to by Orlady are listed in support of the reasons why the agency denied the application. I don't see how it's possible to pick "facts" from this document without more fully understanding the context of the document, and selectively choosing which reasons to refer to in our article as the bases for the "fact" that the application was denied. In my view, when you cite a legal document as the only source in support of WP material, it has to be something truly basic, e.g., so-and-so filed a complaint on such-and-such a date in the Los Angeles Superior Court. As soon as you go beyond that kind of fundamental information, you are interpreting what the legal document says. Plus, in this instance, it is somewhat misleading because we say the application was denied, but indeed it appears from the legal document that the complainant is asking the Director to deny the application after a hearing on the issue. It's like saying Joe was convicted but failing to say that he appealed the conviction.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess I have a different view of what can be treated as "factual" when dealing with a legal document. Statements like "so-and-so filed a complaint" can be problematic because they often require some interpretation as to what terms like "filed" and "complaint" mean in the particular legal context. However, most judicial decisions and many filings contain "findings of fact" or "statements of fact" that can be relied upon to varying degrees, depending on the source and the context. In this case, BPPE staff is (in effect) swearing to a variety of statements. When those statements are factual assertions about BPPE's own past decisions and actions, I see them as pretty reliable. BPPE states that it received an application for approval and denied it (that is, the agency didn't grant approval). The suggestion that BPPE or the Department of Consumer Affairs possibly could reverse that decision in the future (and grant approval) doesn't change the fact (stated by BPPE) that BPPE denied the application once in the past. As for the reasons for denying the application, the logic of the legal arguments in the document apparently does require that BPPE state the regulatory requirement (for example, that the application for approval be filed on a particular state form) and describe how the applicant failed to meet that requirement (for example, that they didn't use the state form). However, the document also states that BPPE has already denied the application once and it lists "Causes for Denial of Application". The list of items under that title is, in brief and in parapharase: "Incorrect Application Form", corporate bylaws not executed by the proper members of the corporation, failure to provide BPPE with pertinent information about cease and desist orders from two other states, failure to properly identify and disclose corporate officers, failure to provide an exemplar of an enrollment agreement that meets state regulations, failure to provide two different types of supporting documentation about each educational program offered, failure to provide financial statements or a required alternative demonstration of financial capacity, failure to provide required documentation of faculty, lack of an on-site library, school catalog not meeting minimum requirements, failure to provide policy on student records retention, and provision of misleading information about prior history in Alabama and Wyoming. It is not necessary to judge whether each of these assertions is valid under a court's rules of evidence or whether the BPPE is properly interpreting its laws to describe this list as "The reason(s) given for denial" or to say that the list "included Preston's failure to inform the BPPE about 'cease and desist' orders it had received in the states of Wyoming and Alabama, as well as insufficient information about the institution's education programs and resources." I suppose that a legal mind would say that this should be revised to say "Preston's alleged failure to inform the BPPE about 'cease and desist' orders ...", but since this passage only identifies the reasons that BPPE gave for its denial, it shouldn't be necessary to determine whether BPPE correctly applied the law or correctly evaluated the application. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we have very different views about what can/should be said on Wikipedia based on a primary legal document. I can say that something is a complaint because it is captioned as a complaint. I can say it was filed because it has a file stamp and a date. I can say it was filed in LA Superior Court because the caption also says that. As for BPPE staff, they are swearing to nothing. This document is not a declaration or affidavit sworn under penalty of perjury. It is a series of allegations. It starts, "Complainant alleges". Frankly, I would be very surprised if the statement that the Bureau denied the application weren't true, but it is not sworn testimony. Judicial decisions are quite different. A judge makes findings of fact because that's his or her role to do so after hearing evidence. Statements of fact in complaints are, of course, that party's allegations - they are generally not sworn (some are because they are verified), and they have no force anyway because they haven't been adjudicated, just as here, apparently, this matter has not been adjudicated. But I will also reiterate one of my primary (no pun intended) objections, which is the conviction/appeal comment I made above. We are pulling this out of context without understanding the implications of the process, and that is - or at least could be - misleading.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
If BPPE had posted a press release on its website stating that Preston University had submitted an application and BPPE had denied it due to a particular list of deficiencies in the application, I don't believe anyone would have questioned the use of the information in a Wikipedia article. Instead of creating and posting press releases to describe its enforcement actions, BPPE is posting copies of official documents associated with those actions. The disclaimer at the top of the web page states that the "information regarding administrative disciplinary actions [is provided] for immediate access and the convenience of interested parties." I don't see that the information about completed BPPE actions, with BPPE's statements of the reasons for those actions, that is contained in the posted documents is inherently different from the same type of information provided in the format of a press release. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
A press release is not a legal document. For example, we cite to announcements by courts without a problem. That doesn't mean we can therefore cite to the same court's legal decisions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the format of the document should control whether it can be used as a source without original research. In this case, a government agency is posting legal papers on its public website to provide "information" to "interested parties" (which presumably include members of the public). The format of the information is admittedly not that of a press release, but I contend that some of the contents are very similar to what the agency might have said in a press release, and the fact that BPPE deliberately posted it for purposes of public information suggests that they do not think it is particularly likely to be misinterpreted by the public. It seems to me that the information I extracted from the legal document was the same kind of information that could have been extracted by a summer intern at BPPE if such a person had been assigned to write a press release, namely "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". I did not go into analysis of legal evidence or BPPE's legal authority or similar legal interpretation, but simply stated that BPPE refused/denied an application for approval in 2011 and provided a summary of some of the reasons that BPPE gave for its denial (described as "reason given for denial"). --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a format issue. Most legal documents are intended for lawyers and judges. It's true that the public can read them, but unless they are parties to the case, they generally don't (except for some Wikipedians :-) ). Your equating a press release with this document is more conclusory (there's a legal word) than supportable. But I kind of think we're going in circles here and should probably wait to see if anyone wants to express an opinion on the issues. Besides, you're wearing me out (it's been a long day).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else (other than Bbb23 and me) have an opinion on any of this? --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's terrible to go digging through a primary source to verify something. I think the key here is context. If someone is digging into a primary source to add a completely new idea to the article, that's a bit more troubling. But if someone is digging into a primary source in order to help add some more detail to a story, or to bring that story to a conclusion, then it's less problematic. To me, this one works because it helps cement the verifiable trend about the University that's already established in reliable third party sources. Everything else is just finding an appropriate level of weight and wording, a task that I'm happy to help with, but could probably be dealt with through a little good ol fashioned editing. Just my 2 cents. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Conan chronologies

Hi, I'd like to get a third (or even fourth or fifth) opinion about the Conan chronologies article.

Personally, I think the article is riddled with original research, but thought I would start by removing the most obvious offender (a self published website), in hopes of avoiding any dispute. So it turns out, the principle (only?) author of the article disagrees with removing the section sourced to the website. So if there's going to be a controversy that requires further discussion, I thought we may as well discuss all the original research, not just the most obvious offenders.

Questions:

  • Is the "barbarian's keep" website a reliable source? (The main subject of this dispute)
  • Is the so-called "fan William Galen Gray's attempt" to create a chronology a reliable source? Does that constitute original research?
  • Does a discussion of each chronology's strengths and weaknesses constitute original research? (There when the article was initially created, and expanded without any real reference to sources.)
  • When the lead tries to evaluate the correctness of the chronologies, is that considered original research?
  • Is the history of the development of each timeline considered original research?
  • Are the parts of the article that compare each timeline to an older timeline considered original research / synthesis?
  • Is the compared order table at the end of the article considered original research / synthesis?

I think the answer to most of these would be obvious original research. A few of these might require further discussion, but I think in every case the answer would be yes.

Thanks in advance for your assistance. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Before we discuss OR, I think we have to answer a more basic question (probably not one for this noticeboard, but I will mention it as long as we are discussing the article)... Is the topic of "Conan chronologies" really notable enough for a stand alone article? What I am seeing are a lot of citations to the various chronologies themselves (primary sources in this context). These are fine for verification of what each chronology says... but not for notability purposes. What we need are some citations to reliable secondary sources that discuss the various chronologies being talked about, sources which analyze and compare them. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Blueboar, I think you're asking the right question, but not necessarily in the right order. The quality of the sources is central to answering this question. If none of this is OR, and we're talking about a topic with substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, then that leads to one answer. But if this is an article that takes a few primary sources, fleshes it out with self published sources, and completes with with tons of original interpretation and observations, that leads to a different answer. Trust me that just dealing with the OR has been contentious, which is why I raised it at the noticeboard. But if we could get a consensus on that, we could move this debate forward. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I am missing something, but... the entire article seems to be a series of basic descriptive statements about what the various chronologies say (each cited to the chronology that says it). That isn't OR... it is an appropriate use of primary sources. The problem is that this is all there is to the article. There is no indication of notability.
Imagine we had an article on a TV series... each episode showed the same events as seen through the eyes of different characters. Now imagine that the only information in that article was a series of plot summaries of each episode. The episodes themselves would be reliable primary sources for those plot summary, and nothing in the article would be OR. So far so good... However, there is still a problem with that article... it gives no indication of what makes the TV series (as a whole) notable. We would need need reliable secondary sources for that. Blueboar (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure? Take a paragraph like this: "The strongest point in favor of this chronology is the affirmation by Howard. The weaknesses are that it misses a few chronological points in the stories that point to a slightly different arrangement, and it does not cover all Conan stories by Howard, having been compiled before the entire corpus was published. It naturally omits all post-Howard writings. All of these weaknesses were subsequently rectified, as the Miller/Clark chronology was revised on numerous occasions over the years to take into account newly discovered and newly written material." Again, that doesn't strike me as a statement of fact cited to a reliable third party source. It strikes me as an original observation by an editor who read a few different chronologies, and decided to insert his/her own thoughts about that chronology's strengths, weaknesses, omissions, and position compared to future chronologies. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with OR policy. But what do you make of that? Shooterwalker (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. I agree with both Shooterwalker and Blueboar. At least some parts of the article do appear to be OR, and I wonder whether the rest is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I am a Conan fan and have all the books, but it seems to me that the paragraph on chronologies in the main article is sufficient. Maybe the solution would be for whoever did the work on the "Conan chronologies" article to post that as a personal blog, and a reference to that could be added at the bottom of the main article?--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Gautier lebon, I've come here because this HAS been a contentious issue. A lot of it looks plainly like OR to me, but trying to remove it has never really stuck. If I can't get a consensus on that, then there's certainly no consensus to get rid of the article. You'd be a huge help if you could flag a few statements that are OR. (Or, if you disagree, at least help create a consensus that I'm wrong, so the issue won't be revisited in the future.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Historic recurrence

Bringing this here as the talk page is dead. Some of its fine, other bits seem to be OR. I'm thinking specifically of the paragraphs beginning with "A recurring theme in world history is the rise and fall of great powers and empires;", "British historian Niall Ferguson" and the sections starting with "Kings kill bishops, create saints". We surely need sources describing them as examples of 'historic recurrence'. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Caveat:I am not familiar with the literature on this topic, and I cannot access several of the references cited. Accordingly, I have not investigated the sources to see if my impressions are correct.
In a light reading of the article, I identified several bits that do not appear to be identified by sources as examples of historical recurrence, and thus are likely to be WP:OR:
  • The paragraph (and quotation) beginning with "A recurring theme in world history is the rise and fall of great powers and empires."
  • The 4 paragraphs that begin with "British historian Niall Ferguson, in Civilization: The West and the Rest"
  • The entire "Striking similarities" section --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Outdent. I'm not sure that I understand the issue. Indeed the rise and fall of empires is a recurring theme in history, so I'm not sure that it needs a specific citation any more than would the statement "the sun rises in the East". The paragraphs that related to Niall Ferguson appear to be properly referenced. Same for the "striking similarities" section which has lots of citations.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That powers rise and fall is a very minimal claim of recurrence. If that's all we're describing, then we don't really need an article at all. However, if we're going to suggest some significant patterns (or report on what some historian thinks are significant patterns) then we'll need sources for that. bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

User 1flyguyrob has created a section called "Female empowerment" on the Nicki Minaj article, and has added various unreliable sources that argue as if the BLP has widely supported the portrayal and interests of women. The user initially claimed that the BLP was a feminist, but has since removed this claim after I prompted him/her to do so. The section features various quotes put together to create almost an argument - that the BLP empowers and supports females. Although the BLP has commented on how females should be portrayed, the editor has chosen to represent this strongly and created a section based on original research. As to avoid WP:3RR, could an administrator look into this? I have spoke to the user on their talk page and on the article talk page (Talk:Nicki Minaj#feminist section) Jennie | ☎ 21:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Logical Positivism Criticism

The Criticisms section of the article on Logical Positivism contains the sentence "Another problem was that universal claims ("all ravens are black") are problematic in terms of verification." which I consider to be original research. A source is given, but the source does not support the statement. There has been some discussion on the talk page, but it has not lead to an agreement. I hereby request additional input in order to build consensus on the matter.

My view is that, while the statement universal claims are problematic in terms of verification is supported by the source, the supposition that this is a problem for verificationism goes beyond what is written in the source. In WP:NOR it says "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." and "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;" I do not think that the statement under question is directly and explicitly supported by the source. I think that, if you read the source carefully, you will agree with me. Note that when the source talks about "a number of difficulties" and "a serious problem" it is no longer talking about universal claims.

I believe that Machine Elf's view is that the statement should not be eliminated because it is supported by the source. I do not think he has read the source carefully and has, therefore, misunderstood it. This is evidenced by the fact that, when asked for direct reference to the statements in the source that support his contribution, he referenced statements which are not related to universal claims. This may not be the source of the disagreement, but it is, nonetheless, my guess at its origin.

The talk page discussion has the title Invalid Criticism of Verificationism. Its scope is larger than what I am addressing here, however, beginning with my 20:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC) comment, it only discusses the issue I just described. Rectipaedia (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 17:32, 10 August 2012 (→‎‎Criticisms: Removed unsourced material.)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Rectipaedia#Tendentious POV pushing and edit warring 11:43, 22 August 2012
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Logical positivism#Invalid Criticism of Verificationism 00:11, 23 August 2012
Comments: Prior to the 4th revert, User:Rectipaedia responds (19:50, 22 August 2012) to another user's request on the article talk page to “suggest a more refined wording rather than warring to remove entirely what now looks to be a properly sourced statement”:
“No, I am not nitpicking over the precise wording. I agree with your interpretation of the source, but I don't think you have read Machine Elf's statement carefully enough. … I am not disputing that universal claims are problematic in terms of verification. I am disputing that this fact itself is a problem for verificationism. … I would simply reword his statement as "Universal claims ("all ravens are black") are problematic in terms of verification." or "The verification principle renders universal claims meaningless." if it weren't for the fact that these statements would not belong in the criticisms section because they are not criticisms.” (emphasis added)
Rather than simply dropping the "ism" suffix, User:Rectipaedia opts for “tendentiously warring to also erase the part you aren't even contesting”, then attempts to solicit a 4th opinion here, (22:08, 22 August 2012), falsely claiming: “There has been some discussion on the talk page, but it has not lead to an agreement.” Apparently, we all agree it's properly sourced. But, continuing to WP:PUSH by splitting hairs over an "ism", User:Rectipaedia goes on to qualify that agreement: “I do not think that the statement under question is directly and explicitly supported by the source.” Although User:Rectipaedia characterizes it as “Machine Elf's statement”, devoid of context, I simply paired down the original “offending material” to simple statements that are easily verifiable… As Britannica notes,[5] positivists abandoned this view… perhaps it's a joke? The primary and secondary literature provide ample verification that there's a problem with verificationism.[6]—Machine Elf 1735 06:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me be clear, I do not agree that the statement is properly sourced. I am not splitting hairs over an ism. The sentence does not even contain any isms for me to drop. I have removed the part of the sentence that I do not contest because the part that I do contest removes its relevance to the Criticisms section of the article. My point is that the source does not characterize the meaninglessness of universal statements as a problem. This characterization has been invented by some past editor who did not cite any sources.
With regards to your digressive points: 1) I am not seeking just a 4th opinion; I am seeking consensus. 2) By characterizing the statement as "Machine Elf's statement" I only meant it as a convenient label. I thought the fact that you introduced it in its current wording was reason enough to call it yours. There was no intent to mislead. 3) The Encyclopaedia Britannica entry and the book, Behaviorism and Logical Positivism: A Reassessment of the Alliance, do not mention universal claims.
Since Machine Elf does not appear to understand my point, I will try to explain it as clearly as I possibly can: The principle of verificationism says that any statement which cannot be verified empirically and is not a logical tautology is meaningless. This renders all kinds of statements meaningless. Examples include metaphysical and spiritual statements such as those about God, the after-life, etc. It also renders universal statements meaningless. One cannot verify certain statements about the past or the future. However, I do not know of any source that goes on to characterize this as some kind of a problem with the principle. Just as I don't know of any source that says that the meaninglessness of statements about God is a problem. Characterizing a consequence of the principle as a problem with the principle is a quite a leap. It is analogous to saying "A problem with Einstein's theory of special relativity is that it does not allow objects to accelerate beyond the speed of light." and placing this under the criticisms section. The fact that is being characterized as a problem is true and can be verified with sources. There are sources that say that objects cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light. But there are no sources that say that this is a problem with Einstein's theory of special relativity.
The only relevant point on which we all agree is that the verification principle renders universal statements meaningless. But this is not what I am contesting. What I am contesting and for which a source has not be given (and which the given source does not support) is that this is a problem with the verification principle. Machine Elf has given sources which mention problems with the verification principle. But none of these problems are the one expressed in the statement under question. Not only do I think the statement is unsourced, but I also think it not true. I doubt a supporting source even exists. Please do not mischaracterize this disagreement as one over wording. I am trying to make it as a clear as possible that I disagree with the meaning of the statement and, because it is not supported (in any way, explicitly or implicitly) by the source, I think it should be removed until a source which supports the statement is provided. Rectipaedia (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the issue has been settled. Cesiumfrog has provided a source which supports the statement. Rectipaedia (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Membership of Christian churches

Is this edit original research? It indicates the proportion of Christians who are members of the first two Christian churches mentioned in Christianity and homosexuality and shows that not all the members support their church's teaching on homosexuality. It has been objected to and reverted on the grounds of being original research, but the objector has not specified the basis for the claim of original research. Esoglou (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to Esoglou's false claim, I pointed out at the beginning that the sources don't talk about homosexuality at all; I also noted that many people in that percentage hold the opposite view and that we may not falsely imply that they oppose homosexuality when in reality they are perfectly okay with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
A source does not have to talk of homosexuality to indicate the proportion of Christians in the two churches. The edit objected to, far from implying that the members necessarily support their church's teaching, actually shows that not all do. Esoglou (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
And the reason this is an OR issue is because a source does need to talk about homosexuality in order to belong in an article on Christianity and homosexuality. Or perhaps we could also write that the churches which oppose homosexuality have long histories of persecutions of minorities and attempts to impose their religious beliefs on others - Spanish Inquisition, conquistadors, Kishinev pogrom...I'm sure you'd see nothing wrong with that, as it can be sourced. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The text explicitly says the contrary, stating that the membership is not 100% in agreement! Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Roscelese and Binksternet. The material seems to be to have been added to make a point that Catholics and Orthodox Christians make up the majority of Christians, rather than to add anything useful about the topic of the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The point that the churches that "make up the majority of Christians" have a common declared position on the matter adds something decidedly useful to an article not on homosexuality but on "Christianity and homosexuality" and is very relevant. Esoglou (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Apart from these editors who have been involved in arguments on homosexual issues, is there no neutral editor who will comment on the admissibility in an article on Christianity and homosexuality of a sourced statement on the fact that the view that homosexual acts are immoral is the teaching of the churches to which, even if not all their members accept the teaching, belongs far the greater part of Christianity? Esoglou (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I would qualify for that... This isn't really a question of Original Research (the information is supported by a source)... it's a question of relevance. The information appears in the article without clear context. There is nothing in the text of the article that explains why membership numbers are relevant... or to put it another way: if it is relevant, we need additional statements that makes that relevance clear. And those statements need to be verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your clear reply. Esoglou (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Widespread cases that appear to be Original Research

In articles such as Adherer and Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) and Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons) (and many many others), editors have added content stating that the monster has appeared in other game publications. Is it original research to claim that a monster appearing in a Pathfinder/Necromancer game sourcebook is the same creature as appeared in Dungeons and Dragons game sourcebook when the claim is based only on the fact that the monster descriptions are similar for use in similar role-playing games? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that unless it is a game by the same publisher (TSR/Wizards) that the assumption it is supposed to be the exact same creature is original research. Even if the monster name is a new creative facet created by TSR here, its reuse in any other work is not 100% assurance its meant to be the same creature/species. There might be very obvious cases, but unless it's crystal clear, we can't assume that. My gut, knowing of past D&D monster article discussions, is that these are attempts to grab at some type of notability showing "reuse" of the creature in other role-playing systems. --MASEM (t) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources that state that the monsters in question have appeared in other game publications?--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
None that I am aware of or have been included in the articles as sources. All that has been used is the game sourcebooks themselves. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue here of course is encapsulated in "None that I am aware of". This is not a case of OR but one of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Web Warlock (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me rephrase, none that I am aware of based on my searches and none that have been provide during several AfDs and long discussions on the D&D project board. And so while I cannot definitively say "No, none exist", I have good reason to believe that none currently exist. Web Warlock, are YOU aware of any such reliable sources that make such a claim? All that would need to happen is that you provide such sources and that question will be answered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the fact that the use of similar fantasy role-play tropes in multiple games is not original research. In fact, it's specifically endorsed by the Open Gaming License System Reference Document. Given that you've previously been engaged in questions about independence and the SRD, I find your asking this question here somewhat curious. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
duh - a company can absolutely be completely related to another company via licensing and other agreements that remove any question of independence yet that doesnt mean that when that company publishes something about myBALL it is writing about the BALL had been written about by the company to which it is related. We can make assumptions, but making assumptions is EXACTLY what WP:OR prohibits ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
And yet, in this RSN thread, you're arguing that these same connections, which you claim here to be OR, are so close that they imperil the independence of these same sources. Your Wikilawyering and WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is showing. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I dont think you have actually read what i wrote. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Bands and paid advertising...

Hi guys - I normally hang out at COIN, and as a result got involved with an issue at The_Kluger_Agency, which has largely been resolved, but we are left with a disagreement about if paragraph is OR or not - can I get some opinions over at Talk:The_Kluger_Agency#Next_Paragraph? Thanks Fayedizard (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to badger - but can someone recommend a good place to go to get a second/third opinion on this? Fayedizard (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal

An editor is inserting grandiose claims into an article that appear to fail basic verification, and thus seem to be OR: [7]. I thought extra opinions would be useful on the talk page: Talk:Sorcha_Faal. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong - citing WADA Code

Is the material reverted here original research, or somehow inappropriate, because it cites a primary source (as is claimed in the revert's edit summary)?

I'm citing the WADA Code in general, and the section on hearings in particular, where it explains that an athlete's failure to challenge charges that he violated anti-doping rules means he waives his right to a hearing on the matter, to augment cited secondary sources that say the same thing. It seems like a perfectly appropriate use to me, of course, but Frank (talk · contribs) disagrees, apparently simply because I'm citing a primary source. I've already spent an inordinate amount of time trying to resolve this with him, first at Talk:Lance_Armstrong#2012_USADA_charges, then at Talk:Lance_Armstrong#Revert.3F.3F.3F_Getting_the_facts_right, and am now seeking an uninvolved outside view (ideally someone who does not feel strongly about the Lance Armstrong case one way or another) to help us resolve this. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Marian persecutions

There is an Observations section in the Marian persecutions article that sounds like someone's personal opinions, like it came from a term paper or something like that. Does that kind of thing belong in Wikipedia? 70.235.86.92 (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Ideally, it would be cleaned up, rewritten from scratch if necessary, and sourced, but it may be beyond the pale. My suggestion: remove anything that's clearly personal opinion or looks implausible or like an extraordinary claim, then leave a note at Talk:Marian persecutions that you intend to remove the rest of the unsourced content if reliable sources aren't provided within a reasonable interval. During the interval, source and copyedit any salvageable parts, if there are any (I have my doubts). Then, if no one comes forward to fix it, out it goes. Rivertorch (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly adding original research, poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant material to the Sexual intercourse article

User Oxycut is a fairly new user who doesn't seem to yet grasp Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Besides not understanding WP:UNDUE, he continues to add unsourced information about non-human animals engaging in fingering and strap-on dildo use, suggesting that it's WP:NPOV, despite those two behaviors in particular being human behaviors only, and he has added this partially unreliably-sourced and irrelevant material about slut-shaming.

See User talk:Oxycut#Zoophilia in the Sexual intercourse article, where I told him: Like I stated, zoophilia is rarely ever referred to as sexual intercourse. This makes no difference to the fact that most sexual intercourse takes place between non-humans because there are more non-humans than there are humans. I've had to revert you again. See what I stated in that edit summary. Firstly, you linked "human." That is WP:OVERLINKING because "human" is such a common word, one that doesn't need to be linked to for readers to understand what we mean. Secondly, you added "of the same or differing species" to the line that is talking about fingering and strap-on dildo use, which are human behaviors. We go by WP:Reliable sources here and, seeing as fingering and strap-on dildo use are human behaviors, the sources are speaking of humans. Which leads me to my next point -- the article is mostly about humans, as the top of the article states, referring readers to the Animal sexual behaviour article for sexual intercourse in other animals. The article is mostly about humans because the term sexual intercourse is usually reserved for humans and we have the Animal sexual behaviour article for non-human sexual activity. Furthermore, most non-humans do not engage in a variety of sex acts. As the fourth paragraph of the article states: "Sexual intercourse between non-human animals is more often referred to as copulation; for most, mating and copulation occurs at the point of estrus (the most fertile period of time in the female's reproductive cycle)..." This paragraph also mentions how sexual intercourse bonds some non-human animals by stating, "Like humans engaging in sex primarily for pleasure, this behavior in the above mentioned animals is also presumed to be for pleasure, and a contributing factor to strengthening their social bonds.", which takes care of your wanting that bond to be mentioned. Besides that, it is mentioned lower in the article, both in the Bonding section and In other animals section. And, finally, adding "human" before the words "college students" makes no sense at all because there are no non-human college students.

Since then, he has also added this unsourced tidbit, and this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The caption to the image that Oxycut added was a gross violation of WP:BLP. I've left a warning on his talk page. If he continues to act like this, he is likely to be reported at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The image arises from a reactive campaign against the condemnation of sexual promiscuity— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
The image and caption is off-topic for the article, the caption is both WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation, and the edit summary is nonsensical. And please sign your posts properly - you know how to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the revert, AndyTheGrump. Like I stated elsewhere, I also don't think that English is this user's first language. But either way, he needs some serious WP:Mentoring. I can't at all figure out why he added the word "human" in front of "college students," for example. As stated, it simply makes no sense. I was thinking about reporting him to ANI because his editing reflects WP:Competence issues, but, since the matter was mostly an original research/unsourced matter, I decided to bring it here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Sexual intercourse for comments addressed about the development of the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
There are no comments referring to these edits on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that the editor is about to make them. But per everything I've already stated on the matter, I don't see how any of the edits can be justified. I'm only going to end up repeating what I've repeated here, with additions. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't bother. Given the nonsense posted on the talk page, I am going to report Oxycut at WP:ANI. It seems to me that either we are being trolled, or there are issues of WP:COMPETENCE involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Help needed with Coatrack tag on Faithful Word Baptist Church

A coatrack tag has been added to Faithful Word Baptist Church, a very small church that has been labelled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In looking for what any and all reliable sources stated I was only able to find so much and mainly tied to several news incidents:

  • The hate group designation from the Southern Poverty Law Center
  • The churches pastor, in a sermon "Why I hate Barack Obama," that he prays for the death of the president
  • KNXV-TV noted the day after the sermon a member of the church "showed up outside of the Phoenix Convention Center toting an AR-15 assault rifle" and a pistol when President Barack Obama spoke.

I'm interested in getting the coatrack tag removed as I feel it indicates we are somehow suppressing or adding information that is not about the group. In asking the editors who support the tag they are convinced this is a coatrack but have been unable to show anything has been added that doesn't belong or that anything is missing. It seems to be a circular discussion so some uninvolved opinions would be appreciated, at least by me. If it is a coatrack what is the way forward to improving it, if it really isn't then what is the path for removing the tag? Any help appreciated. Insomesia (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Club 33; dealing with private clubs

We have been having a recurring concern on Club 33. The issue is that this club is private, with very limited membership, and we've had several "members" posting information that they may or may not have heard while inside the club, some of which may or may not be true. The most recent edit is obviously one such edit (while I think the info in the edit is pretty trivial and should be removed in general, I'm not touching it until I learn more). The problem is that finding reliable sources for a lot of this is next to impossible and every member that comes to the page seems to want to add (and re-add) their personal tidbit of knowledge. So, do we do a full-scale removal of anything dubious that is not sourced or do we leave it or is there something in between? I just don't know how to handle the private aspect of this and would like some guidance here. Thanks. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 14:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything that's both dubious and unsourced has no place in the article. Period. Everything else is negotiable. What's missing is any discussion on the talk page, where the most recent thread dates from 2009. While the onus is theoretically on the editor adding the material to begin a discussion, you're free to do so yourself. That way you can explain why you're reverting these additions, and just maybe the other editors will engage with you and come to understand why they're problematic. Also, a note on the talk page is a very good idea if you're planning any large-scale removal of content that's been there for very long. Take care not to edit war even when policy is on your side. I've made one revert to the article and will look it over when I get the chance (probably not today). Rivertorch (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-deportation

The lead to this article says "Self-deportation is an approach to dealing with illegal immigrants in the United States that involves the creation of legal structures to encourage illegal immigrants to voluntarily return to their home countries, rather than organized efforts of law enforcement to locate and deport them. While the term has a longer history within law enforcement communities, where it is formally known as attrition through enforcement". Recently an editor has added a new section, Self-deportation#Post 911. There are two problems here. First, unlike the Mitt Romney section, neither 'self-deportation' or 'attrition through enforcement' is used to describe any activities. Secondly, the actual sources don't seem to back the claims. The Center for Immigration Studies looks like a reliable source, but [8] doesn't back the statement "As a result, 1.7 million immigrants self deported after their transportation was auctioned by police". Nor do sources 8[9] and 9[10] back self-deportation. The official report at [11] And linking the official California report at [12] is also original research. I've reverted the same editor at Illegal immigration to the United States for the same reasons (some of the same text and sources were used there also). For doing that I was told at the talk page "Your edit appears to violate the user agreement". The editor's other comments at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States#Mass deportations suggest further that he doesn't understand NOR. I don't want to get into an edit war with him so would like other editors' comments. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The new content does have some earmarks of a personal essay or other original research. Significantly, the new additions aren't about the topic of self-deportation, but rather are mostly about issuance of driver's licenses/permits to illegal immigrants, its curtailment after 9/11/2011, and how subsequent actions have affected undocumented U.S. immigrants. I think the effort to shoehorn this content into an article about another topic makes the content look more problematic than it actually is. The topic is related to Driver's license in the United States or Illegal immigration to the United States, but I think it merits its own separate article. I haven't found an article on this topic, although Coalition for a Secure Driver's License is relevant, and the topic appears (in limited context) in articles like Ana Sol Gutierrez and The Howie Carr Show. I'd like to suggest that the content should go to the editor's user space for development work towards creating a new article. --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting idea, but even with that he'll need to make sure his sources actually discuss the topic. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed! IMO, the content should be removed from Self-deportation. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, but if you look at my talk page and at [13] I don't think that would be well met. Another editor has just tagged the section with an edit summary " tagging OR and confusing sources. I don't see where in the sources any of this comes from". Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

East Jerusalem and the 1967 lines

This request involved this edit, where original research was alleged. The issue involves sources that say that Iceland and Brazil have recognized the State of Palestine

  • "based on borders predating the six-day war of 1967", and
  • "based on the existing borders in 1967",

respectively. The edit says "based on borders which leave East Jerusalem in Palestine" to tie the issue into the subject of the article, namely Jerusalem. The third source in the edit provides that "the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza - occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six Day War" and "They seek recognition on 1967 borders - in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza" which means that the borders mentioned by Iceland and Brazil involve East Jerusalem in Palestine. The third source even has a picture illustrating that the 1967 border goes right through Jerusalem.

Is this a case of original research, or is the edit OK from an OR point of view?

Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not ok, it's a case of being careless with terminology. In the first place, do the sources explicitly refer to the Palestinian state as the "State of Palestine" or are those your own words? A "State of Palestine" may have been proclaimed at one time or another in history, but when it comes to reliable sources it's clearly the case that there still isn't a Palestinian state, much less a "State of Palestine." It's important that as an editor you not project your own beliefs or aspirations onto the sources you're citing to generate content. Also, you must remember that Palestine has multiple denotations, the two most relevant to this instance being the geographic region and the political entity, and they shouldn't be conflated. I hope that helps.—Biosketch (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Biosketch, although I'd rather hear from editors who don't hold very strong opinions concerning the subject-matter itself. --Dailycare (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Tylman

Page: Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is about Richard Tylman (1546-1584), who was mayor of Faversham in 1580. Should this footnote be included in the article:

"At the Session at Canterbury dated July 22, 1600 in Section: "Badgers Authorized" there was a grain badger privilege recorded from Esquires Michael Sondes, Knight; his brother Sir Richard Sondes, and George Waller, Esq.; allowed to one "Richard Tylman of Faversham, yeoman,"; which would be some 16 years after the Tylman's passing at the alleged very early age of 38 according to a different source. Lack of further dates in this particular document regarding Faversham's Tylman makes it impossible to say how they relate. — Session at Canterbury, 22nd July, 1600 Q/SR/1/m.9 1600. The National Archives. Kent History and Library Centre, UK. Retrieved September 1, 2012."

Since the footnote is about a Tylman who appeared in court 16 years after the subject of the article died, it cannot be the same person. Also the fact that this Tylman was described as a "yeoman" (an archaic term used to describe someone of the small farming class) makes it unlikely that they were closely related. The subject of the article as Mayor of Haversham, would have been considered a gentleman, as would his male descendants, which was a higher rank.

TFD (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

With those old sources we cannot be sure if the record of death is correct. I think the wording is important, but mentioning that are conflicting records which may cast doubt on parts of the article is not ORish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Leave it out. A primary source, and we need to do better with our history articles that that. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
There has been a prior discussion on whether this article uses reliable sources, and I don't think there is a consensus that it doesn't. See Wikipedia:RSN#Genealogy_databases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury records is not a wp:primary source in this article, because it was not written by the subject himself nor the people who were directly involved. It's just an old source, that's all. I would also like to suggest to TFD to please stop misrepresenting the sources listed in this article in your controversial rehash of an EEML attack on my person, or perhaps ask someone else to explain to you in plain English what the Old English reference reads. Tylman did not appear in court "after the subject of the article died", but was mentioned in "Badgers Authorized" on that date. His alleged appearance is an unsupported claim. Please try to ease up on your controversial 5th AfD nom, TFD, based on misleading and uninformed rationale (as noted by several editors already). If you want to come through as a concerned individual, quote from the Canterbury records instead, without insulting anyone's intelligence with your interpretations. Poeticbent talk 17:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The source you provided says that it is from a record of the Kent Quarter Sessions, which was a local court, sitting at Canterbury on 22nd July, 1600. The session reference is Q/SR/1/m.9 1600. Clearly it was 1600. It seems that the applicant would have appeared in person before the three JPs mentioned, how else would he apply? Whether or not Tylman appeared in person, it is not credible that the Court would award a "badger" (permission to trade in corn) long after someone's death, so this is not the same person. TFD (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It certainly is a primary source for our purposes. I've looked at the RSN discussion, and agree with the last opinion by Andrew Lancaster. And it's not as if there is a shortage of good recent academic history on 16th century England. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

User constructed rankings in box-office charts

Is it possible to get some opinions at Talk:1960_in_film#Request_for_comment_about_replacing_top_ten_films_charts_with_revisionist_rankings..

The chart on this page ranks films by their theatrical performance using this book as a source. It is a list of films ordered by their financial success in 1960, using Variety's theatrical rental figures, which was the metric in use at the time. An editor is converting these charts to use box-office gross (the modern day metric) (as in this version of the article) using The Numbers box-office index as a source. I have no fundamental problem with converting theatrical rental to box-office gross (if it is possible to convert the whole list), but in many cases the equivalent box-office figure (roughly twice the theatrical rental) is unknown. The editor is constructing the chart from just the known grosses. The problem though is that The Numbers box-office index does not rank the box-office, it just lists the box-office figure if it is known, so I believe it is synthesis to construct a ranking from just known box-office figures since the rankings should also be sourced as well. It is resulting in top 10 films being omitted from the chart where only the theatrical rental is known. I've started an RFC but it's not getting any responses. I don't expect someone to come along and settle the dispute, but can someone please come along and assess whether it is original research to construct the chart order ourselves. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That looks like original research to me; to construct a ranking even though we are confident that we may be missing some high-ranking entries is definitely a step beyond what WP:CALC allows. bobrayner (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The China Study - reception

The section reception discusses a debate between The China Study's author (T. Colin Campbell) and another nutritional scientist (Loren Cordain). For the last few days an IP user has tried to add a “refutation” of Cordain's arguments, either by combining sources that discuss neither Campbell's or Cordain's theories nor their debate ([15], [16]), or without sourcing ([17]). I think that this is synthesis and thus original research, but I'd like to know if others share this view. I have notified the IP of this discussion. --Six words (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fact sheet of India

Talk:India#Fact sheet merger proposal should be of some interest to the regulars of this board. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Kings of Armenia

Avidus has been contributing to several pages about armenian kings, of these, many are about Orontid kings, but his sources are clearly lacking. He puts Orontes III as the founder of the city of Yervandashat, and in the page of that same city, he has put Orontes III as the founder, even though none of the sources claim this, and Movses Khorenatsi says it was the last orontid king (Orontes IV). He has made several alterations to many more pages, it would be best if there was action taken towards researching whether the statements can be verified. JirisysKlatoon (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the modifications made by Avidus come from this source, as his contributions seem to be copied verbatim from that blog. JirisysKlatoon (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The edits by Avidus could be a concern. But he hasn't been on Wikipedia since April, 2011. I left a note on his talk page, but I suggest that this report might be closed. Anyone who thinks that Avidus may have added wrong information can check his contributions and see if anything needs to be reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Scientific method

Given that the relationship between fringe science, protoscience, and mainstream science is often contested, this template looks to me to be original research, and almost certainly a violation of WP:NPOV if presented as 'fact'. Any opinions?

{{Scientific method}}

AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't see where it's meant to be used, what good it would be for anything. There's templates for deletion, do you want to propose it? But if it's meant to help navigation through articles on methodology, perhaps it could be worked into something helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
It was used in the Fringe science and Protoscience articles. I'm fairly sure that this diagram, or something very much like it, came up before and was generally agreed to be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep this is the same one, and it's OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
There are many historians and philosophers of science, and science and technology studies scholars who deal with the boundary between "science" and "non-science." I would expect a valid diagram to cite a clear and singular evocation of the typology illustrated in the diagram, and for that typology to be clearly evident in the work of a seriously influential HPS / STS typographer. Otherwise, without such a citation, it looks like clear OR. If someone has cobbled together typographies from multiple scholars works, none of which make the argument put in the diagram, then the diagram is clear COATRACK/OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, the idea of the template is to share that diagram in different articles (currently, just into Fringe science and Protoscience, but could also be useful in other related articles), like a navigation template that shows the relationships between them. Please, note that I'm not the author of the diagram, I just cut it from Fringe science and moved into this new template so it can be shared. If the information is wrong, it was already wrong in the article, I'm not backing the validity of its contents at all (I'm not an expert at all about this topic). However, instead of removing it, if anything can be saved I suggest you to improve it and add the adequate references. Because in my POV diagrams like that can improve the readability of those articles, to help readers understand the similarities and differences between those terms. Cheers —surueña 18:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this template seems questionable to me too. One could reasonably argue that there are no such things as "Protoscience" and "Fringe science". There are only science, pseudo-science (nonscience that pretends to be science like Lysenkoism) and simply nonscience like astrology and religious beliefs. There is a question what really constitutes science. For example, some think that theories without predictive power do not belong to science. Now, speaking about real science, it is not uncommon that the same experimental data or results of simulations may have a number of alternative interpretations, and the fact that some interpretations are less popular than others does not make them wrong, non-scientific, pseudoscientific or even "fringe" in the negative sense, even though some participants here probably think otherwise. My very best wishes (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I think it probably is original research, and is likely to lead to much more confusion than enlightenment. If there is something called "protoscience", and I find the concept useful myself, then it is pretty much defined by not using the scientific method, or not fulfilling current scientific norms anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Given that things have often been described as 'fringe science', or 'protoscience' quite explicitly because they are not "treated with scientific method". I'd suggest that on this basis, not only is the diagram WP:OR, it is also just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It's more diverse because pseudoscience isn't limited to what is presented or looks like science, astrology is included because it is a framework that makes falsifiable statements (which have been falsified in tests) about the world but does not adhere to the scientific method (some astrologers do claim it's a science, while others claim it's a religion etc). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Feminist existentialism

Resolved
 – contradictory source issue repaired, mainly with a blockquote, but it's probably better than using the encyclopedia's voice for this. —Cupco 15:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at Feminist existentialism? The one source it has dealing with both of those two concepts does not at all say what the article says it does (at least as far as I can tell from the abstract) and I am beginning to think the article might be a hoax. Someone take a fresh look at it, please. —Cupco 04:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely not a hoax, but I'm not sure if it's needed either. Simone de Beauvoir was a key figure in existentialism and also wrote a book on women which was the feminist text from the late 1940s through to the end of the 1960s. I don't know if there is enough writing other than her book to make this into a current of thought. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can find a source saying that, and do something with the source in there now that says the two concepts are incompatible. —Cupco 15:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Vitruvian man

An anonymous editor added some 5000 bytes to the article Vitruvian man and within minutes a new editor User:RevistaDhimbja tidied this piece of text up and added another 2000 bytes. This language has the look and feel of a professional but it lacks citations. To me it smells of being either original research or plagiarism. Would someone have a look and give a second opinion. (diffs here). Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
It's basically a machine translation of this. I believe it's a fringe position (for instance, the original essay goes on to recommend the construction of circular hospital beds) but if anybody has a reason to believe that Dr Vaso is accepted as an expert on Da Vinci, perhaps we could build his argument into the article in a more appropriate way (ie. a couple of paragraphs of neutral text rather than a copy & pasted essay). bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Removed it. Job done. bobrayner (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Jewish leaders in the Land of Israel

This article has just emerged from AfD and is the subject of a discussion as to its scope. Please join us on the talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Second Vermont Republic paragraph OR?

Before I was fully aware of WP policy on OR, I let this questionable paragraph stand. Don't feel like having another argument should same people be around, so thought I'd bring it here. At the time and now no evidence of a "news release" - as opposed to the NY Times article - can be found. Any thoughts on what to do? Thanks CarolMooreDC 23:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In April 2007, SVR advisory board member Frank Bryan and Vermont Commons publisher Ian Baldwin authored an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, "The Once and Future Republic of Vermont".[1] A month later in his column at the Vermont Secretary of State's website, Vermont State Archivist Gregory Sanford countered several quotes in a "news release by two Vermont supporters of secession". A reading of the Bryan and Baldwin opinion piece shows that they are the same, word for word, as the "news release". Sanford held that each of quotes was "based on historical facts of dubious reputation", illustrating the point by "juxtaposing italicized quotes from the press release with quotes from historical documents". Sanford said his point "is neither to argue with our current secessionists nor denigrate the beliefs of the authors of the press release". Rather it was to argue "the importance of having accessible public records to evaluate the rhetoric of public figures".[2]

References

  1. ^ Frank Bryan and Ian Baldwin Op-Ed: The Once and Future Republic of Vermont, Washington Post, April 1, 2007.
  2. ^ Gregory Sanford, Vermont State Archivist, Voice From The Vault: Myths and Documents, May 2007.
  • I'm in agreement with you that a WaPo op-ed piece (not a NYT article, btw), written by a SVR advisory board member and a SVR founder about SVR certainly is WP:OR. The quandary then is how to include reference to a valid WP:RS secondary source refutation of a number of misrepresentations and assertions in the partisan op-ed by the Vermont State archivist, in the monthly Vermont Secretary of State's publication, based on documents maintained and reported on regularly by that archivist (until his recent retirement this summer) in his regular column reporting on such documents. I think that there's definitely a place for this but maybe the wording in the first sentence which, correct me if I'm wrong, may have been written by you, could use some work. While the original op-ed may be problematic, there's no problem in including the work of a valid secondary source reporting on the matter that refers to the op-ed via a number of direct quotes. Vttor (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It is OR, but not for the reasons Vttor states... it is not OR to say that Bryan and Baldwin wrote what they wrote in the Washington Post ob-ed piece. Nor is it OR to say that Sanford quoted what he quoted on his website. What is OR is the analysis of the two, and the conclusion that Sanford was quoting Bryan and Baldwin. Yes, it is obvious that this is what he was doing... but it is still OR for us to do the analysis and state that conclusion ourselves. What is missing is a reliable source outside of Wikipedia that does the analysis and draws the conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's only obvious that Sanford quotes Bryan/Baldwin if one compares both original documents, but doing that or asking readers to do that is the essence of WP:OR. (I don't know if I even ever did it.) Thinking more about it, the relevant sentence of a Sanford's document printed five weeks after the Bryan/Baldwin peice reads: several quotes in a "news release by two Vermont supporters of secession". This easily could be some press release by two other secessionists making similar points.
Without some original specific document and authors to point to, all you can do is leave Bryan/Baldwin as it is OR summarize all their arguments in the piece, not cherry pick the ones Sanford disputes. And then have a separate paragraph summarizing Sanford in response to a news release by two Vermont supporters of secession Sanford writes - and all his arguments. All done in an NPOV way, of course. CarolMooreDC 02:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Remembered changes I wanted to make here and came back with a clearer view. Here's the diff of removal of Sanford. We don't include information that is not directly about the subject and since there is no proof Sanford was writing about Second Vermont Republic members, it's really irrelevant. He could be talking about completely different individuals with very different views. CarolMooreDC 02:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Shameless episodes

All of the episode summaries from aforementioned article are copied directly from the 4oD website. It is also worth noting that all of the episodes are titled in the article but the episodes have never been titled, just referred to by series and episode. The article truly needs a lot of work. KANE 20:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This should also be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems if it is not already since I see the copying of 4oD as the more serious of the two problems.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Defence of OR at Ashkenazi Jews

I'm having some trouble trying to get a user, Tritomex, to observe some fundamental protocols at Ashkenazi Jews.

Looking at the page I found a generalization on the subject, and checked the reference. Nothing in the reference justified the generalization (which in any case was written solecistically and on that grounds alone required adjustment. Rather than correct it immediately, I opened up a discussion on the talk page here. Tritomex was the only person to reply. He does not appear to understand what a request re WP:OR means. The text fails WP:V. Tritomex cannot justify in the source the statement I queried, and yet persists in responding with his personal impressions of genetic research, most of it published before the paper I cited, and therefore, aside from WP:OR, wholly irrelevant. He cannot in short distinguish his personal convictions about a topic, with core policy demands that edits be based on a strict correlation with sources.

Since a whole day passed without any understanding of the issue, I offered a solution by emending the text, using several relevant academic RS here. I was immediately reverted, and accused of three infractions, WP:Vandalism, WP:COPY, POV pushing here and the talk page.

Could specialists please check to see if the sentence:-

Although the historical record is very limited, there is a scholarly consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East.(ref name="Atzmon2010")

Can be justified in the cited reference. Where is Atzmon saying there is a scholarly consensus?--Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think one needs to be a geneticist to take the view that as phrased it is either a truism or meaningless. It's a truism to the extent that Ashkenazis represent a continuity of Jewish identity that by definition will trace back to the middle east. To say that a whole population originated in the middle east or anywhere is as nonsensical as saying that the whole of an American family of many-generations 'orginated' in one specific place. It should be phrased to clarify exactly what is meant. The alternartives are the rather remarkable claim that the whole of the Ashkenazi population has remained untouched by any genetic input from east European peoples or that converts comprise the entire population. Anyway, the source is crystal clear. There is considerable admixture among the Ashkenazi: ″Interestingly, the distance to the closest Southern European population follows the order from proximal to distal: Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Syrian,Turkish and Iranian, which reflects historical admixture with local communities. STRUCTURE results show that the Jewish Diaspora groups all demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry, but varied significantly in the extent of European admixture. There is almost no European ancestry in Iranian and Persian Jews, whereas Syrian, Sephardic, and Ashkenazi Jews have European admixture ranging from 30%~60%.‘’ So A's have the most admixture - which means both European and ME ancestry. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing politics

Article: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Text: "In politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy."[18]

Sources:

  1. J. E. Goldthorpe. An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, England, UK; Oakleigh, Melbourne, Australia; New York, New York, USA Pp. 156. ISBN 0-521-24545-1.
  2. Rodney P. Carlisle. Encyclopedia of politics: the left and the right, Volume 2. University of Michigan; Sage Reference, 2005. Pp.693, 721. ISBN 1-4129-0409-9
  3. Bobbio, Norberto and Allan Cameron, Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1997, ISBN 978-0-226-06246-4

Goldthorpe wrote, "What may be termed the truly conservative view is that there is a natural hierarchy of skills and talents in which some people are born leaders, whether by heredity or family tradtion.... It is, however, now less often expressed; and the more usual right-wing view, which may be called 'liberal-conservative', is that unequal rewards are right and desirable so long as the competition for wealth and power is a fair one."

Bobbio wrote, "[Elisabetta Galeotti's] conclusions are in part the same as Laponce's, and the chosen terms are 'hierarchy' for the right and 'equality' for the left. Here again the opposites are not what one would expect. Why hierarchy, not inequality? Galeotti is worried that the use of the weaker term 'inequality', rather than 'hierarchy', would shift liberal ideology too far to the right, because although liberalism does not share the egalitarian ideas which typify the left, and therefore is in some ways anti-egalitarian, it should not be confused with ideologies for which inequality between human beings is natural, intrinsic and unavoidable, which should be termed 'hierarchical', not 'anti-egalitarian'. This is like saying that there are two forms of 'anti-egalitarianism', depending on the kind of inequality which is acceptable."

Do the sources support the text? Goldthorpe is describing only one form of the Right, extreme royalists, as supporting hierarchy, and makes no claims about other types and in fact mentions only one other type (liberal-conservatives). Bobbio is not endorsing the view that the Right supports hierarchy, merely mentioning an alternative view that says it does.

TFD (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Strauss-Howe Generational Theory

I am having a dispute with another editor at Strauss-Howe generational theory. The dispute concerns the statement below as it is presently sourced:

"Twenty years later, the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (funded by the National Science Foundation) have presented new evidence that some of the negative predictions and stereotypes that Strauss and Howe made in 13th Gen were an exaggerated description of Generation X in the 1970s and 80s and that many did not come true -- quite the opposite writes Jon D. Miller, author of the study: "If we could use only three words to describe them, the most applicable choices would be active, balanced, and happy. These words apply to a large majority".

I think that this constitutes original research and a misrepresentation of what the sources say.

First of all, the webinar link does not have any record of the content of the webinar. Nor does it say where a transcript or recording could be found. To me this is not adequate evidence of anything.

The link to the report, which does have a perfectly good report on Generation X:

  • does not say that Strauss and Howe presented an exaggerated description of youth in the 70s and 80s.
  • does not say that the book 13th Gen was well researched.
  • does not say that the "negative" predictions (specifically by S&H) and stereotypes were either a) present in the work of Strauss & Howe or b) if present are no longer relevant.

When I asked the other editor about this, their response was: "You need to read the book 13th Gen so you can understand what's in it. You've said you haven't read it -- yet. The title of the report is "Active, Balanced and Happy: These young Americans are not bowling alone". So it turns out the predictions in the book were exaggerated." See:Talk:Strauss-Howe generational theory#Critical Reception.

To me this is a classic case of synthesis. Source A (Strauss and Howe) say X, Source B (LSAY) says Y, therefore A is wrong. Am I missing something here? As far as I understand the policy on OR, we have to report directly what a source actually says, and not draw our own conclusions based on our own reading of another source. I would appreciate any guidance or help with this problem.Peregrine981 (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The key issue about all this is that the editor who added the book review (Peregrine981) reduces Strauss and Howe's 13th Gen to an "agenda book" using a 13th Gen review as proof -- so it's a biased description of the book anyway. The editor doesn't want to fix their work -- but rather ask another editor to clean up after them. Please review the book correctly in an unbiased way without any undue weight.
Is there any place in the sources that explictly state that "twenty years later, some say books like 13th Gen were an exaggerated description of youth in the 1970s and 1980s"? Just a short answer, please. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your question, first could you answer if the review of 13th Gen by the reviewer is biased, slanted or has undue weight in connection with quantity of text, prominence of placement etc.? Media67 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Gee, I haven't read the review, nor do I intend to. All I care about is if this article contains a Synthesis or not, and here I am trying to be helpful and not obstreperous. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
No, the paragraph you have a question about is not trying to prove the review wrong at all. It does however present new, current evidence about Strauss and Howe's premise in 13th Gen. The main premise of that book are negative predictions about youth in the 70s and 80s. The LSAY report that was added is new, current information about the main premise of the book -- which is that the predictions didn't come true -- according to the the University of Michighan study funded by the National Science Foundation. Also, it's difficult to talk to people who are reviewing books they admit they haven't read.Media67 (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
In my reading of the report and the webinar (though I don't consider the webinar even to be a reliable source) there is barely any discussion of Strauss and Howe at all, and certainly nothing that explicitly states anything about their theory, other than that their dates for Gen X have been widely used. Here are the links again (which were removed without explanation by Media67):
http://lsay.org/GenX_Rept_Iss1.pdf
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122044
Peregrine981 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
On the first page in the second paragraph, The Generation X Report, "Active. Balanced and Happy: These young Americans are not bowling alone, it explicitely mentions the work of Strauss and Howe (this is not a footnote in the report). Strauss and Howe wrote 9 books on generations. 13th Gen is a pivotal part of the generations theory. Gen X and 13th Gen are mentioned in the Wikipedia article -- so this is relevant information. It's a pivotal part of the theory to educate readers that new current information from LSAY is important because it's --- current. It gives a more well-rounded accurate description of Gen X -- than a few words from a review from 1993.Media67 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It says, "Generation X refers to American adults now 30 to 50 years of age, born between 1961 and 1981. The naming of generations and the assignment of age ranges stem from a 1991 book by William Strauss and Neil House called Generations. The book examines generations across centuries and their characteristics, and provides a definition of Generation X that has been used widely in both popular and academic literature. " That is all it directly says about Strauss and Howe. It makes no further commentary on their work. I repeat, it does not say that Strauss and Howe presented an exaggerated description of youth in the 70s and 80s. It does not say that the book 13th Gen was well researched. It does not say that the "negative" predictions (specifically by S&H) and stereotypes were either a) present in the work of Strauss & Howe or b) if present are no longer relevant. We cannot extrapolate such broad conclusions based on the fact that the book is mentioned for having provided a commonly accepted definition of Generation X. You can use this source all you like for Generation X article, but not here, except to say that their definition of Generation X has been widely accepted according to this source. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to take the lack of response from Media67 for several days, and the comments from GeorgeLouis as tacit agreement that the statement as sourced is a case of OR. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Where does the policy say a "couple of days" is the maximum allowed time to respond? - (Preceding left by User:Media67
It doesn't. But your last substantive addition to the discussion was 5 days ago here. Since then you have made various minor changes, and blanked your side of the discussion at the talk page without an explanation (here), but made no attempt to enter into the discussion here, so I presumed you had conceded the point. Sorry if that was a rash conclusion.
Now please address the issue at hand, and could you directly answer GeorgeLouis' question without getting into all kinds of other tangential issues. They aren't the point here. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Already answered GeorgeLouis. According to your strict interpretation, the only thing you can ask me to remove is 13th Gen from that paragraph. Editors can talk about whatever they want with a relevant source attached if it relates to the article. The question about your unduly weighted review will be posted soon on the appropriate noticeboard.Media67 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Also you should really read the book if you want to do a fair unbiased critique of it. Otherwise this section will turn into a college research paper where students just quote sources from newspapers.Media67 (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that in order to edit the article on "Strauss-Howe generational theory" an editor has to have read all of their books? I have read the foundational book, and I can read the secondary sources interpreting the others. In fact it is largely irrelevant to a wikipedia page whether you have read the primary source or not, since we are in general supposed to avoid using primary sources, for the very reason that we are not supposed to be interpreting their meaning on our own. Editors must only write what is written in the sources they use. You cannot synthesize, and you cannot extrapolate. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I'm suggesting that if you read it then you'd be a better curator of reviews that you post about it. Your only review is questionable and unduly weighted. We're talking about 13th Gen (not the "foundational book").76.91.247.21 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The article is about Strauss-Howe generational theory. Not 13th Gen. It is not "my" review, and I've told you, invited you, implored you to add more if you think it is so unrepresentative. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Simply from the tenor of the conversation, I get the idea that Peregrine981 has a good understanding of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis, With only two really involved editors here, it would be hard to see exactly what the Consensus is, so maybe these two editors should pause a bit and re-read Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_discussion, particularly noting "it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately." This might start with trimming the paragraph to just a few sentences about which both editors can agree and leaving the interpretation out for a while, or forever. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Pussy Riot: Songs and videos

The article Pussy Riot appears to me to have some original research in the section "Songs and Videos". I attempted to clean this up myself, but an IP editor reverted me; when I attempted to tag it 24 hours later while still awaiting discussion, she/he removed one of the tags.[19] The IP editor has declined two invitations to discuss on the talk page.

There are a few clearly solid sources in this section (Associated Press, NPR, etc.), but about half the section is sourced only to music videos from Pussy Riot's YouTube channel or not sourced at all. (A few Russian-language blogs are also cited, which don't appear to me to be notable sources.) Editors have then added what they consider to be notable themes in songs, descriptions of the performances, and their own translations of the lyrics into English. None of their interpretations seem completely unreasonable, but with hundreds of thousands of secondary sources out there on Pussy Riot, I don't see any reason to put claims in the article that we can find zero secondary sources for.

This article is extremely controversial and has received 200,000 hits this month, so it'd be a good one to clean up. Thanks for your help! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A simple blog is clearly not a reliable source, so you were right tag the statement. If you could find another source to support it that would probably be best, or simply remove the statement. If the IP continues to cause trouble report them to an administrator. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

The above article includes a Section headed "LGBT issues." It now states that "stances [by Frank L. VanderSloot] on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates." An editor recently investigated each of the cited Sources and found that none of them explicitly stated that "stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates." This finding led to the conclusion that the quoted phrase was an example of Synthesis and Original Research: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."[20]

The editor also examined each of the Sources to see if they were Reliable and determined that only four of the eight sources could be deemed so: The other four were not neutral observers, but were rather editorialists or people with a POV on the subject.

You can get more details at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Synthesis_and_sources.

The editor posted a revised version of Frank L. VanderSloot, curing what he claims were violations of WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research (the right-hand version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=518705766&oldid=518703432, with the edit summary "See Talk. "Synthesis and sources"). The editor also checked the remaining Sources to ascertain that they were live and germane.

The first editor's revised version was reverted three times, by two other editors. So now the original, uncorrected, version is live on Wikipedia.

The questions are:

  1. Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
  2. Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
  3. Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?

GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person (i.e. "the editor")? It makes for a confusing start to your complaint. Basically what you're saying is that you don't like 4 of the sources, but nonetheless, they are obviously WP:RS and you haven't given any specific reason why they shouldn't be cited. As was pointed out on the talk page, there are numerous reliable secondary sources that go as far as to refer to the BLP subject as "anti-gay",[21][22][23][24] some adding "virulently"[25], "crusader",[26] and "blatantly homophobic"[27] ,and many other reliable sources have simply chronicled the subject's controversial positions on gay issues in great detail (without specifically labeling him as "anti-gay", "homophobic", etc.); e.g.,[28][29][30][31][32][33] and it's very much a part of the public record. So in other words, the current wording is very conservative, saying simply that the BLP subject's stances have generated controversy. Would you prefer something more along the lines of "...have referred to him as "as a (virulent, homophobic) anti-gay (crusader)"?
WP:WELLKNOWN says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." That clearly applies in this case. The current version mentions that the BLP subject's stances on gay issues have generated controversy. That's obviously justifiable. So what exactly are you arguing for? Is this just a whitewash or is there something specific that you think the article should say as an alternative to the current wording? Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
And in the case at hand, the limits of UNDUE have repeatedly been pushed to the breaking point on this minor personage. Including past tries to link him to pedophilia. The problem is that BLPs are required to be written conservatively, and are not places to list every sin one thinks the person is guilty of in extensive detail. Like pushing a minor FDA letter to his company into being a charge that he is some sort of felonious person trying to kill people by using puffery to sell products, etc. And using "whitewash" just because one =not only has consensus against them on the article talk page, at BLP/N etc. but notably engaging in long-term edit war to push those edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems me that VanderSloot linked himself to pedophilia when he outed a reporter and engaged in gay-baiting when that reporter ran a series of articles on pedophiles. We're only covering episodes that actually occurred; no-one is making anything up here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The simple fact remains that the current wording in the article about Vandersloot's position on gay rights issues having generated controversy is very conservatively stated and amply backed up by numerous WP:RS -- it has been mentioned by secondary sourced so often that it can rightly be considered a hallmark feature of the BLP subject.
It would not have been at all unreasonable to have made a stronger statement, using the term "anti-gay", but instead, a much more toned down and neutral description was used. Arguing for removal of such a well-supported vanilla statement (if in fact that is what George was arguing for; he didn't make that clear) looks very much like whitewashing. Pedophilia isn't the issue here, and it's misleading to imply that the article links VanderSloot to pedophilia; that is simply not the case, so it's not even worth mentioning this tangent. Collect's new argument about WP:UNDUE is totally inapplicable in this case -- grasping at straws it would seem. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read the prior discussions. The fact is that the material is not deserving of the space it takes up when a sentence or two would suffice. See WP:UNDUE Meanwhile, when we use the reporter's name, we are, indeed, "outing" him more than VdS did. See also Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_1#Mormon_pedophiles. "whitewashing" is removal, "editing" is placing proper amounts of information in an article -- excessive blackening of a person is far worse than you seem to acknowledge. Collect (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I have read every word in every discussion to date. The revised version that the OP is pushing for above doesn't address any issues about undue weight; he merely deleted bunch of reliable sources that he didn't like and replaced them with citation needed tags. I assumed that the gist of this argument was simply about removing/altering the statement in the article that says: "His public stances on gay rights issues have generated controversy among journalists and gay rights groups." If you're actually talking about removing or substantially altering the whole LGBT section, then that's an order of magnitude more ridiculous. The text that is currently in the LGBT is the pared down version[34] which was agreed on after lengthy discussion on the Talk page and DR.[35] What exactly are you arguing for now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The reporter went on national television and did other interviews where he described all of the events in detail and explained that VanderSloot outed him. The assertion that including the reporter's name is "outing him more than VdS did" is beyond absurd (and that's putting it nicely). Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is getting off the subject and should be confined to the three questions posted above. This is one of the first steps in Dispute Resolution and should be treated as such. My opinion is that (1) Yes, the revised Section should be posted because it gives the facts without any interpretation of them, (2) it should be posted immediately, because it adversely reflects on a living person and (3) posting the revised Section will automatically remove the faulty, non-Reliable Sources. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, I do not see any signs of synthesis. These supposedly faulty sources have been subjected to editorial review and fact-checked, and their debatable status as opinion pieces is not the defining reason they are being used as sources. The information that is contained in the LGB section is information that is useful for researching VanderSloot, and is reasonably well cited. He has been accused of outing a reporter; this is established. There is substantial coverage of this accusation which assuages any concerns I have about undue weight. The idea that the line "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates," is somehow synthesized is... incomprehensible. This is an even-tempered, mild-to-a-fault way of saying what dozens of reliable sources are indicating. This event should be mentioned in enough detail to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Doing less than that is problematic for BLP reasons, not just for VanderSloot, but also Zuckerman. Grayfell (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
OTOH, the length and detail in this BLP is UNDUE from the outset. And outing Zuckerman in the BLP when outing was the charge against vanderSloot is astounding. And I suggest cordially that your editing experience on Wikipedia is insufficient for the conclusions you draw about what is "problematic" or not. You are a major contributor to the BLP at question, thus you are far from a disinterested third party here. [36] shows a direct disregard for WP:BLP as a matter of fact. As was shown by discussion at BLP/N, and confirmed by many editors finding Stowell's name to be a BLP violation. In short -- it is quite understandable that you do not find "synthesis" in an article you have been a contributor to. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
GeorgeLouis invited me to comment, so I have. With that in mind, I kindly ask you to refrain from judging my qualifications to contribute to this discussion. You have made your opinion that VanderSloot's stance on homosexuality has been given undue weight very, very clear. Zuckerman himself has openly discussed the event in which he was allegedly outed, and has been interviewed several times on the subject. This is covered in the sources that are a major reason for this post, so I suspect you already know that. The cat's out of the bag, so claiming that we shouldn't be outing him a second time seems grossly naive about what it means to out someone. The damage has been done, and it can't be undone, that's the point. As for Stowell, I don't entirely agree with the decision to remove his name, but I can understand why it went the way it did. To insinuate that because of one contested edit I am unqualified to hold any position on BLP issues is unproductive, and slightly bullying. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
In response to the RFC: my opinion is that no, the revised section should not be posted. There is no problem with synthesis here. As written, this is a balanced presentation of relevant information.Coastside (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment on this RFC as well (no idea why as I have no knowledge and little interest in this area). My comments are based only on what is presented here and on the talk page. Simply put, no I do not think these sources should be removed. Opinion pieces from significant commentators with a particular view seem entirely valid as sources to support statements about opinion. I would be alarmed if WP:RS started to be interpreted in the way you suggest. Hope this has been helpful. AndrewRT(Talk) 12:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, editorial sources should be used only when other, more objective, sources are not available and they should always be have inline attribution stating who is giving the opinion. As I have said before in other threads in regard to this article: the GLBT section's title, organization and length create POV and it is in need of significant revision and reduction before it can be said to be neutrally presented information.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to agree that the current version is Original Research, as long as we can agree that the version as it stands now should be improved. I am prepared to move the conversation back to Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Improving_GLBT_section, where we can talk about improving it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The first comment at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#Improving_GLBT_section after I had posted the above message was not very helpful, so perhaps we can determine it here—is the current version Original Research or not? I call your attention to the first sentence of the GLBT section that states flatlly "VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates.[39][11][77][78][12][79][80][81][82]." That is a Wikipedia interpretation of what the Sources say, and WP is not supposed to give interpretations. As for a comment above that many editors have checked the Sources and found them reliable, well, I have checked them and found the UNreliable, and I am sure you will agree that we are all equal editors here. I have queried at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Very_many_bad_sources and have been told that I have to bring to them sources one at a time to get a judgment there. Anyway, I am heartened by KeithBob's comment above and hope that he will continue to work on improving the article along with the rest of us. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A halt to discussion here

The discussion here having petered out and with nothing resolved, I suggest we examine the sources one at a time, as noted above. I am still firm in my belief that WP:Synthesis is absolutely being used in this article, to its detriment, but we certainly don't want to have discussions on more than one Notice Board at a time, so we might as well park this overall topic by the side of the road for a while and simply look at the individual sources, the first one being at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Glenn_Greenwald_as_RS_in_Frank_L._VanderSloot GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

American Dream as an exported concept

An implicit assertion has been made at American Dream that the concept of the American Dream has somehow spread to other countries such as Russia, the UK, and Germany but as far as I can see, none of the citations that are given actually make that assertion. It seems rather more likely that the editor that added these comments is engaging in Original Research - seeing in the citations evidence for something which is not actually there. Could someone cast an eye over the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Dream#Other_parts_of_the_World_.28section.29 and take a look at the article to see if I am imagining that the other editor is being genuine or engaging in wishful thinking. --80.223.105.147 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

OR means a lack of RS, or imagining an idea out of thin air. That is not the case and every statement is sourced to solid RS. The problem is the critic thinks the RS are wrong. He rejects the numerous cited sources such as Emily S. Rosenberg, Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion 1890-1945 (1982) or Reiner Pommerin (1997). The American Impact on Postwar Germany. Berghahn Books. p. 84. ISBN 9781571810953. which explain in great detail how the Dream "somehow spread to other countries" and which explicitly use the term "American Dream" (for Rosenberg see the title and for Pommerin, see p 84. Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Rjensen is mistaken, as many editors are, about what WP:NOR really says, and I quote: " Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." He or she should go back and check the sources if they do indeed "directly and explicitly" support the blanket statement. Also, I ask the unnamed contributor above what he or she means by "implicit" in the opening sentence? Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The cited sources look okay to me, saying the American Dream was exported in several successful ways. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
But do they? The talk page seems to contradict that claim. What I see is isolated sentences taken from a jumble of diverse sources, looking for all the world as though someone has typed "American dream" + Russia or + Germany into google books to look for texts to support the export argument. This produces poor content, since you tend to get a listing of supposed examples of exports rather than a coherent disussion of how aspects of American post-war consumer culture influenced otheer nations, or became a model to emulate. Paul B (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The material on Russia may or may not be fine, but the single almost-pointless sentence on Britain seems to me to be problematic. It may not be a case of OR, but the source is poor: Michael Poole, Human Resource Management: Origins, Developments and Critical Analyses. This topic does not suggest specialist knowledge of British history or culture. The idea that the concept of home ownership was somehow imported from America is frankly implausible. The tradition that "the Englishman's home is his castle" was well-established, as was the aspiration to home ownership. Essentially, you'd need more than a book on "Human Resource Management" to support the claim that Thatcher was introducing the concept of the "American dream" (which itself is a multi-faceted idea) rather than drawing on longstanding British ideas about home-ownership. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thatcher's move to sell public housing to the residents was a major break with British traditions [Blundell, Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady - Page 112; Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World p 251.] (The "castle doctrine" is not about ownership). Many RS have commented on how Thatcher's policies resembled American policies [Ferguson p 252]. As for the OR allegation that I imagined a link to the American dream: that is false; all the scholars cited in the article link the events explicitly to the "American Dream", (as does Niall Ferguson on Britain p 252). Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I know the "castle doctrine" is not about ownership. If you read the sentence more carefully you will see that. I wrote "The tradition that 'the Englishman's home is his castle' was well-established, as was the aspiration to home ownership." Yes, Thatcher made a break with post-war Labourite policies. That's not news. But that is not the same as 'importing the American Dream' and your source remains a feeble one indeed to support such a claim. The point is that home-ownership aspiration was already well established as a social ideal that owed nothing to the Americian Dream. You are evading this point by referring to sources that appear to make no claims about importing the 'American' dream. This seemingly disingenuous deployment of sourcing is what led to this thread. BTW according to John Burnett (A Social History of Housing) home ownership in England was steadily increasing throughout the post-war period. Thatcher essentially created a policy to exploit that desire (26% in 1945; 47% in 1966; 63% in 1983). This was due to the growth of building societies, a concept originating in Britain. Paul B (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
In response I have augmented the section with a better statement (by two British professors Knights and McCabe) that is explicit about the American Dream aspect: "We do argue, however, that a reflection and reinforcement of the American Dream has been the emphasis on individualism as extolled by Margaret Thatcher and epitomized by the 'enterprise' culture." here is the link to the statement: Knights (2003). Organization and Innovation. McGraw-Hill International. p. 4. ISBN 9780335226061. Rjensen (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Mark Driscoll (pastor)

In the article Mark Driscoll, who is a religious figure, there is a section called Beliefs. It is a summary of some of the more sensational beliefs of the topic. To obtain this information Google Docs has been used as a source, as well as, his audio files, his church website, theresurgence website (his church), most of which at all sourced from Driscoll himself. Does this fall under WP:NOR? I am inclined to remove the material per WP:ALIVE however if it does not violate established norms then I am fine with the material staying. Basileias (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Original Research Drawing

Regarding this image: there is a historical device that has been described vaguely in the historical literature. A user has drawn a picture in which he has used his own imagination in drawing the unclear aspects of the device. Is the image usable in Wiki? What happens if there exists a secondary source that disagrees with the drawing in certain aspects? Regards, -- Taha (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The image is hilarious, and so is the article Naser al-Din Shah's slide. One does so feel for poor Naser al-Din Shah. There has always been a problem applying OR rules to images, because images are not 'statements' as such. The image does not assert 'this is what it actually looked like' (that's part of the problem with the policy "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". It's very difficult to be clear when that is the case) Indeed, it's obviously a fantasy-image. The thing couldn't possibly work like that, since the hard-working member would not be able to take the pain. Indeed I rather doubt it would be able to survive the ordeal in one piece.
I think there is less of a problem if it is presented as a interpretation, but there is also the issue of notability. If were a image from a book it could be presented as an interpretation of the story of the device and placed in context. Also, it's also really really cheesy, but there's no clear policy on bad taste either. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The image is wholly unsuitable for the intended topic and for any other topic. It should be deleted. The tale of the shah's slide has the shah at the bottom, not in the middle with his royal rod in great danger of being chopped off. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
@Paul B: what is your opinion about the fact that there is a secondary source that depicts the king at the bottom?
@Binksternet: so far we have had 63K+ discussion with the artist and he has elaborated on the details of the scenario in which the king could safely accomplish the task. We need a reference to a policy to be able to ban it from the wiki article. It would be great if you give us an explicit reference to a wiki policy. Regards, Taha (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This image has nothing to do with "original research", because almost all details are mentioned in Persian historical references. The first image was, this but there was two issues, 1- The slide length mentioned about 3 meters in references. 2- Palm is hardly to grow in Tehran. Therefore, I changed the drawing.

After that, some users started nagging about strange issues and some unimportant details. For example Taha asked me do you have any reference shows that they became nude during sex! Do you have any reference about leaning slide on trees and not having own leg! Because there is no clue about shah's position (opposite or under slide) nobody can draw any image of it!! (of course, there is an animation showing shah is at opposite of slide but this part of animation is NOT made according to references, it is totally imaginary.), and so on. In Persian Wikipedia, there were a lot of discussion, in it's page plus two independent deletion discussion pages and one prompt in administrators' noticeboard. Until now all of this efforts have been unsuccessful to remove, or censor, the image from the article; and final effort is make a discussion in English wiki and then try to delete the image from commons! Monfie (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the image can be construed as "Original research". You would have to show that it is an accurate rendition of the content of the "original documents" to prove otherwise. Frankly I do not believe you. Are you seriously saying that these documents describe an absurdly long slide with several holes for penis-protusion, supported by palm trees. I rather doubt it. The slide appears to be in some sort of fantasy-compound from an episode of Lost. The image you say is the "first" image is a close-up with the palms and the absurd slide-length removed, so is clearly your second version, not the first (as the upload dates confirm). I don't think the complaints are nit-picking. It's pretty obvious that the slide could not work as depicted. If you present it as an 'orientalist' fantasy that might be different, but then other problems of notability arise. BTW, since you have these "original documents" detailing the contraption, why don't you add actual content and citations to the article Naser al-Din Shah's slide. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Even if the image wasn't original research (which it is), it should still be excluded from any article on the basis of being a crappy soft-porn illustration of an anatomically-implausible fantasy. This is an encyclopaedia, not a webhosting service for juvenile 'artwork', and we have editorial standards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I nominated the image for deletion on Commons. Any who are interested can surf over to that page and offer their opinion on the drawing. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is more than one version. There is also the full scale sex-slide I'm A Celebrity Get Me in Here version: File:Naser al-Din Shah slide.jpg. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@ Paul B: I did not said a image can not be a original research, but I tell this one is not because most details are mentioned in references. The only issue is the position of king, which two poses are possible. One is illustrated be me and the second one is this and there is no evidence which one is exactly correct. The second image is close-up that palms are removed and slide length is decreased. You believe or not, it is in reference that the slide length was about 3 meters and it was made from stone.Monfie (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well the version you depict could not look like that if it were made from stone. I do not think the pose depicted here is remotely possible. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC
Well, I have asked few questions that might not have been to the point. However, I also had asked the following questions:
  1. Position of the king and the hole: besides impossibility, another secondary source depicts him in the bottom end of the slide. Also, with the speed of the ladies in the picture, based on their hairs, the process could not last more than few second and the king would get hurt seriously.
  2. The slide is fixed on trees (or wooden stands): the slide (or maybe another similar slide), was a three meter long inclined piece of marble stone which makes it unlikely to be fixed on such stands.
  3. Multiple ladies on the slide: on a three meters long slide, the picture essentially shows three ladies on it at the same time. The secondary source does not show multiple ladies.
  4. There is a lake!!, the clouds in the background, etc which makes the drawing implausible for me.
Also, we have asked him several times to reveal the citations of the artwork; but so far we have been unsuccessful in getting them. Taha (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
@taha 1- The position of king is unknown so maybe you prefer king opposite slide. 2- I still think this issue is trivial, but If everybody say it is not, I can redraw this part. 3- There are two, not three! Remember this is a tool for facilitate of sex with plenty of girls in a limited time. 4- For quality issues, I do not claim this is perfect, but now it is the best free available illustration. I wish in future others draw better than me and replace this image.Monfie (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I've had a quick look for some information on this famous sex-slide (always looking for new ideas to spice up my life, or maybe suggest for a Christmas present). It does indeed seem marginally notable, but all the limited material I can find on it relates to Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar, not to Naser al-Din Shah. He seems to be the one who was always waiting at the bottom for action, so I suggest the article should be renamed. Paul B (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for extending the article. About article's name I disagree. This is right, Fat′h-Ali Shah had made several slides and he was the probable inventor and the main user of them, as I had mentioned in article before, but these structures were kept and more and less used, until the end of Qajar dynasty and then Reza shah distributed them. But in speaking they are famous as Naser al-Din Shah's slide and nobody tells them Fat′h-Ali Shah slide. The famous name is always in parity rather than correcter name in Wikipedia.Monfie (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'll take your word for it that that's the name by which it is usually known, and you are right, of course, that we use the most common name whether or not it is "correct". But it would be useful to have more sources for that - or indeed any. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I tried to translate exact words of source to justify this name. In addition, Google results for "Naser al-Din Shah's slide", in Persian language, are 11 times more than Fat′h-Ali Shah slide and about 1000 more than marble slide. But about the image I changed my mind after I think twice. Indeed most of sources explain Shah used to lie on his back under the slide. Anyway, if you want to repoduce it fot Christmas present, it would be OK, but if you turned to mass production, don't forget to pay Qajar dynasty's copy right fee.Monfie (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Anybody else get the feeling they're being trolled? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Enjoy this animated version [37]. Sadly the image is copyrighted. But you can see the whole film [38]. There's live slide action - well animated slide action - at 14.00 mins + Paul B (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion this image has three mistakes
  1. dehkhoda's sentence means down (زیر) not back (پشت) and except this sentence this image dosn't have other refrence that says shah should be at the back of slide!
  2. according to that day technology for constructing this toy they should made in with 30-40 cm thickness stone (Like this so how can king use slide according to human's Penis size?!
  3. how can king could understand who is on slide and enjoy.
  4. because of side force using this tool in this condition should make Penile fracture!SPhotographer (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Christian views on sin

Hi, The talkpage here [39] contains concerns from another editor about the article's section on "Sin in the Bible" being bias. I am concerned that it violates the No Original Research policies/guidlines. However, I'd prefer outside input and advise before doing anything. I expressed these concerns here [40]. The article hasn't been edited since September 24 of this year. The talkpage, not counting my edit, hasn't been edited since April of this year. I voiced my concerns two days ago and still there's no response (nor a response to the previous editor). The sources used in the section in question are all Bible verses. Fordx12 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You're concern is well grounded. The entire section is pure and unadulterated OR. I would just delete it in it's entirety, as there is absolutely nothing here that could possibly be useful, even as a starting point for a new section, if one is needed. If you think one is, then just leave an expand template. This is an scholarly topic, and every single source for this section must be sourced with a very high quality academic source. I would avoid using theological sources from particular faith communities unless those sources have been widely cited by the academic community at large. Adding to my watchlist, and let Jeffro know that he got an answer on the talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not OR as far as I can see. It just trots out traditional Christian theology on Original Sin as if it were fact. It needs to say "according to traditional Christian theology" and then give the history of thinking about OS from Augustine on. And indicate how it was institutionalisted in Catholic theology and its later role in Protestantism(s). There is plenty of scholarly material in the Original sin article, which this one should simply summarise. Paul B (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the version that complained about was quite different. The objection is replied to in the section below (unfortunately not obvious because the editor created a new section to reply). He removed a large part of it to leave a rump summarising traditional atonement theology. Paul B (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Uhmmm... We're talking about a different section of the article, Paul, not the one on original sin. The section in question is called "Sin in the Bible". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Uhmmm... no, Sin in the bible is the same section. The Original sin part is a subsection of it. I took it to be the main point of contention because it is the section uncited by anything other than Biblical quotes. I see no OR in the whole scetion, just a bias to present a particular view as "the truth". It's an NOPO issue, but the need for proper citation and historical context, as i said above. Paul B (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. But there are ZERO secondary sources whatsoever in the whole section except in the etymology section and the first sentence of the old testament subsection, INCLUDING in the original sin section. Who says that any of the Bible quotes here are significant in terms of the topic of this article? Only the person who wrote this section, based solely on their own criteria, and that is exactly what OR is. This isn't a problem of finding sources for what is here, because what is here is completely worthless, and nothing at all can be "rescued". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry? You can't say there are ZERO (CAPITALS!) and then point out that there are some! Some is not ZERO. In any case, this is wholly irrerlevant since I have already said that the section is poorly cited. SHOUTING back at me, albeit inaccurately, something I already stated is not very helpful. Frankly, it comes over as mere bluster to avoid the simple courtesy of saying you made a mistake when you said it was a different section. The content is just standard atonement theology. Nothing special. OR means it comes from the mind of the editor. That's quite different from trotting out theological banalities as if they were truths, and not citing them or putting them in historical context. Just asserting it's OR because... it just is... isn't much of an argument. As I've already pointed out, citations for theological claims can easily be found in the linked longer articles, but it needs to be improved for NPOV and historical context. Paul B (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that my comments at the article's Talk page, linked above by Fordx12, are from over a year ago. The article has been changed since that time, and on cursory examination my concerns from September 2011 appear to have been addressed. However, it still doesn't appear to be properly sourced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was talking about the entire first section. Jeffro77, sorry, that was an oversight on my part. I forgot to check the date of your comment. I plan on deleting parts of that section, finding some sources for parts of it as well. Outside input during this process would be appreciated seeing that the article seems to be pretty inactive. Thanks, Fordx12 (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Urantia Book primary sourcing

In the article for The Urantia Book, an extensive section has grown that is very nearly completely primarily sourced. Under the NOR/primary sources and under the NPOV/undue weight policies, I and others, think this section should be removed, or re-sourced with secondary sources. I would like to know if this a valid opinion for this case, or not. Xaxafrad (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:SPA, created 3 years ago and inactive until recently. Too much material there from primary sources. Resource with secondary sources where possible. Urantia should certainly not be used as a source about its critics. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This article was created about 7 years ago. The teaching/content section was based mainly on primary source The Urantia Book as in many other articles about religious books - Book of Mormon, A Course in Miracles. It existed for a very long time in such form with occasionally corrections done by editors and none of them complained that this section is based on primary source - the book. [41] There are about 500 editors of this article. In November 2012 the teaching section was reduced to one sentence about cosmology and one paragraph about Lucifer rebellion. From now on any Wikipedia reader will be convinced that this book is mostly about Lucifer. My all attempts to restore the former version of teaching were unsuccessful and resulted in edit war. My edits were reversed by Xaxafrad and Ian.thomson. I am open to discussion, I believe I know the tinderboxes of this article and have some ideas how to avoid them.

Most of the secondary sources for this article are critical sources. Short work of Sarah Levis is an exception there. The biggest critical source is Martin Gardner book - Urantia, The Great Cult Mystery. I am reading this book carefully once again, and every day I am finding more inaccuracies about the text of TUB. Known to me academic opinions about Gardner book are not favourable. In my opinion Gardner didn't read these 2097 pages carefully. Other secondary sources are sometimes accurate in description of book, sometimes not. There is not always possible to use secondary sources, particularly in the description of the content of book.

I began Wikipedia editing with WP:SPA account mainly to correct Gardner blunders in the article about The Urantia Book. After this was done, slightly different picture of the book emerged in the article, which some editors, accustomed for many years to see this book according to Gardner views, may see as promotion.

Now this article is not about The Urantia Book but rather about different book invented by editors; it is distorted completely with enormous critical views section. I will correct it once again. I wonder what is the agenda of current editors because it is difficult to believe that two or three very experienced editors can leave any article in such condition.

Jaworski (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only have you replaced the material based on primary sources, you've removed the primary sources template. Two editors disagree with you and have reverted you. I've said that there is too much reliance on primary sources yet you've restored them. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Make that 3 editors who disagree. History2007 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This is quotation from Ian.thomson page: "I just hate everybody and have a strong desire to crush your work".

That's a pity you didn't address my main concern.

Jaworski (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. What he wrote there was "The purpose of this list is to show that, no, I'm not religiously biased, I don't care what religion or lack thereof you follow, I just hate everybody and have a strong desire to crush your work for stupid reasons like not following the site's arbitrary guidelines, that I totally make up just to mess with you." Do click on the text you find offensive. For others, the page is User:Ian.thomson/MeVsXians and to see this in the context of another page of his, see User talk:Ian.thomson, Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Jaworski, you're supposed to notify users when you mention them in discussion they're not involved in. In the future, if you don't want to be mistaken for someone who dishonestly slanders others behind their backs because he doesn't have a legitimate argument, you might want to post things in their original context and notify the user you're mentioning when doing so. Also, I've responded on Talk:The Urantia Book as to how the teachings section was WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I also think way out primary sourcing and undue amounts of WP:Undue. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ali al-Sistani#Homosexuality

The last two paragraphs of this appear to be pure original research and synth. Either the allegation is reliably sourced (and it's sourced to both The Independent and the New York Times), or it isn't and should be removed, but I don't think one can just make stuff up in al-Sistani's defense, which isn't in any reliable source. It literally uses something not being mentioned on a single website as "proof" it never happened. 109.154.209.183 (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

actually, I'll go ahead and remove it. The former text was:

It has to be noted however, that the above allegation is sourced from one article [1] from a pro-LGBT advocacy group [2] that alleges the above without having published any proof of correspondence or the fatwa being spoken about. It is likely false news as the current website of Al-Sistani [3] or any other major news outlet have had no mention of this alleged occurrence.
To the contrary, Al-Sistani is well known for promoting peace and tolerance. [4][5][6][7]

But seems to be based on a strawman (attack the weakest of the three sources) and WP:SYNTH

Pink News cannot be used as a source, especially as this is a WP:BLP. However, the NYT and Independent are reliable sources and quoting them is not original research. On the other hand, self-analysis, such as "he can't have done that because..." is definitely original research. Zerotalk 14:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
If there is serious doubt that the allegations reported are true, then the allegations should be removed, not countered with OR in the article. Establishing that there is serious doubt (which BTW looks unlikely to me) would require a consensus to be reached among editors. Formerip (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO there are two parts to the current controversial paragraph. The first part which says, In 2005 Sistani allegedly issued a fatwa on his website calling for the execution of gays in the "worst, most severe way". is sourced from the two reliable (independent and times) and pinknews. I can not refute this as this is well sourced.
My problem comes from the later statement, Following protests from UK-based Iraqi gay rights groups, Sistani agreed to remove the fatwa from his website except for the section calling for the punishment of lesbianism. This implies that Sistani was forced by the protests to remove the fatwa, except this is not true as the fatwa was removed a year later. [42]. Claiming it was a result of protests is also original research. --Muhammad(talk) 09:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless he removed it because he just completely independently decided to change his mind about the correct interpretation of Islamic law, it seems absurd to say that the removal was not in response to protests. Why you think the fact that it took a year for the pressure to have effect is somehow evidence that it didn't have an effect is a mystery to me. However if there is some dispute that the removal was a response to pressure, it can surely be rephrased e.g.: "Sistani received protests from UK-based Iraqi gay rights groups. The following year he removed the fatwa from his website except for the section calling for the punishment of lesbianism." Paul B (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The phrasing is better. Please implement the change :) --Muhammad(talk) 15:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't remember seeing any source which says the punishment for lesbianism still stands. --Muhammad(talk) 15:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
While we can personally assess potential rationales and determine for ourselves what appears likely or not; within an article we cannot WP:SYN string together sources to make or imply connections that none of the sources specifically make. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
While that is true, there is room for argument about when a connection is implied and what kind of connection is understood. As far as I know the connection is made in the sources, the issue is whether it is directly causal. There are always ambiguous cases, but as you know when connections seem obvious or conclusions undeniable (X was in a plane crash. There were no survivors = X died in the plane crash) we do not treat them as OR as that would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Has it occurred to anyone that listing every conceivable ruling or opinion from a specific inividual cleric is not the way to have a normal encyclopedia article? In parallel terms - would we remotely consider having writers of entire tomes of theology have each and every part of their belief itemised in an article? Should Jewish Talmud rulings from any given rabbi also be placed on Wikipedia? Sorry -- I think this article is a pretty porr example for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

List of NCAA Men's Division I Basketball champions

A question has popped up regarding List of NCAA Men's Division I Basketball champions, a featured list. A user has added a table of champions by current conference affiliation, with references for conference affiliations; they aren't sufficient to verify that aspect, but I'm confident that adequate replacements could be found. The championships themselves are not cited here; the user is saying that the references in a previous table are good enough for this to not be OR. I'm not convinced myself, and have reverted the addition of the table on multiple occasions over the last week (once for lack of references, and twice for my OR concerns/verification issues). I'd rather not get blocked for edit warring while editing an FL I wrote, so I take my question to you: in theory, would a reference to each conference's current members be enough to avoid OR if the champions are cited earlier in the article? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Original research being inserted at Eschatology

72.208.223.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting original research at Eschatology. I've explained repeatedly that we only summarize what sources say, and not do things like cite a primary source to argue something about that source that is only tangentially related to the main topic. He also cites philpapers.org's categories as an source for what is or isn't a philosophical topic, even though philpapers.org outright says "We make no claim to be producing a principled, definitive taxonomy of philosophy. Our taxonomy has been largely driven by pragmatic concerns."

He refuses to acknowledge that he's engaging in original research, or that we do not accept original research.

Will someone else please revert this original research, or please explain to me how WP:No original research has been changed to allow this? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a clear example of original research to me too - I've reverted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections,

This involves one edit in particular. The User:Arzel continues to provide the following edit in Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. The full discussion on the talk page can be found here.

The comments also were credited with helping the President Obama win the women's vote. Karen Hughes, a former George W. Bush adviser, in an op-ed in Politico stated: "And if another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue. The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of 'legitimate rape.'"[8] According to exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney. When the final votes were tallied the percentage of women vote recieved by Obama was less in 2012 (55% - 44%) than it was in 2008 (56% - 43%) [9] Comments from otherwise low profile candidates such as Rep. Todd Akin, may have cost Mitt Romney the election and also reinforced for some voters concerns that the GOP is out of touch with women.[10]

  1. ^ http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/politics/2005-1476.html
  2. ^ http://www.pinknews.co.uk/editorial-policy/
  3. ^ http://www.sistani.org/
  4. ^ http://madcanuck.blogspot.com/2005/03/ali-sistani-for-2005-nobel-peace-prize.html
  5. ^ http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2005-03-24/news/0503230912_1_grand-ayatollah-ali-iraq-s-shiites-iraqi-shiite U.s. Lucky To Have Sistani As `Peace Partner'
  6. ^ http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2007/11/sistani-repeats-his-call-for-unity-and.html
  7. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/aug/27/wrap.markoliver Sistani brokers Najaf peace deal
  8. ^ Karen Hughes (2012-11-12). "Communication lessons from the election". p. 2. Retrieved 2012-11-18.
  9. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/women-are-not-a-unified-voting-bloc/265007/
  10. ^ Abdullah, Halimah. "How women ruled the 2012 election and where the GOP went wrong". CNN. Retrieved 21 November 2012.


The bolded statement is what is in question. It is meant to be a statement that undermines other arguments coming from secondary sources. However, the attached source doesn't make that argument, and mainly provides a discussion on the gender gap. I think this is a textbook example of WP:SYN. However, I came here to get some other uninvolved opinions. Casprings (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats a close call. The source for the bolded statement does mention rape: "From President Barack Obama's 11-point edge with women over Mitt Romney in exit polls to Republicans losing two senate seats over troubling statements about rape, 2012 seemed to further the idea that gender is the leading definer of Democratic voters: double x marks the spot." But the source is not about the rape/pregnancy issue. The statistics are certainly relevant to the article: readers will want to know if the rape/preg controversies impacted the 2012 election results or not. A possible compromise would be to include the 2012 results in the article ("according to exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney") and put the comparison with the 2008 results into a footnote. --Noleander (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
That seems fair to me. I left a message on the page of other concerned editors concerning my post here. Will wait for them to chime in.Casprings (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that readers will want to know whether the controversies had an impact on the presidential election, but I don't think that dropping in a context-free statistic without secondary analysis is acceptable under synth. I imagine that if Wikipedians are implying the argument that the comments didn't affect the election/women's voting that there are significant external sources are also making that argument. Danger! High voltage! 02:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This is such a bunch of BS it is almost insulting to have to go through it. The original source reported the percenatges for both years.
According to CNN's exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney. That level of female support for the president made an especially big impact in swing states like Ohio where the gender breakdown mirrored the national figures.

Big gains for women in 2012 It is a gender advantage Obama clinched even as early as mid October when data showed that among white women, the president led 52%-46%. Back in 2008 when Obama carried Ohio, he received 47% of votes from white women in that state. Nationally, Obama received 56% of the female vote in 2008.

Why don't we just get to the meat of the issue. Casprings, Roscolese, and others don't want the percentages from 2008 in the article because takes away from the message that they are trying to impart with this article, that these issues had a significant impact on the election. The Atlantic article has the following.
Let's start with one of the biggest story lines of 2012: that the gender gap was an epic problem for Romney and the GOP in general. It started when the Republican primaries featured conversations about the morality of birth control, which ended up inspiring a tidal wave of women to push Obama over the top.

When everything was tallied from 2012 this turned out not to be true. This year's 11-point margin was big, but it wasn't bigger than it was four years ago. According to the exit polls, the margin was actually bigger in 2008—13 percentage points. Obama won women 56 percent to 43 percent in 2008. He won them 55 percent to 44 percent on Tuesday.

Now tell me how in the hell can it be original research to mention the 2008 figures when we have Reliable Sources making that same arguement? Arzel (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Because it isn't making the argument that these controversies didn't impact the gender gap in 2012. It is simply noting that the gender gap isn't a new problem for the GOP. You claim to be a statistician. You should know that a the statistic doesn't prove that this didn't have any effect. The President received less votes in general and multiple factors affect voting. The drop could have been caused by multiple things and might have been more or less if these controversies were not present. In other words, there could have been multiple causal mechanisms. Moreover, you have to add the fact that there were significantly less exit polls in this election and they covered significantly less states. While all of that is really non-relavent to wikipedia (as a secondary source still needs to comment on it), it might explain why no WP:RS has used this drop in support as evidence that this didn't matter. It is a rather weak argument. That said, to be included, it needs to be used by a WP:RS to construct the argument you are trying to construct. Otherwise, there is a problem with WP:SYN.
That siad, I would still go for the compromise given by talk. The fact is, a reader would like to know these facts. We are here to serve them.Casprings (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The part that reads "When the final votes were tallied" cannot be correct yet—not all the votes have been tallied. The bit about a slightly lower percentage of women voting for Obama in 2012 versus 2008 is valid, though it is very small (one percent, unknown error factor) and the man/woman polarity is complicated by race: Black and Latino women were the avalanche that kept Obama in the White House, while White women voted for Romney 56% to Obama's 42%. The truth is more complex than the one sentence conveys. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I should have stated exit polls. Regardless, you and your cohorts want to include the 2012 exit polls as evidence for something, care to explain what that is? As for your final statement, that doesn't hold water. Black women supported Obama at a 95% level in 2008 and 96% in 2012. Hispanic women went from 67% to 76%, but to say there were an avalanche is fantasy. Exit polls say that the Hispanic vote went up to 10% (9% in 2008). I couldn't find the percentage of Hispanic women in that population, but lets assume it was 60% (54% for all women. Under the information available, the Black woman vote difference was negligable and the hispanic women difference could have at most shifted the race 1% point to Obama. Thus even if they had voted as they did in 2008 it would not have made a difference since Obama won by over 3% points. It is really not that complicated at all. Obama was able to get his base out more than Romney. There were slight shifts in the electorate toward Romney compared to 2008, but not enough to turn the election in his favor. Arzel (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
If you prefer to think of 95% of Black women voting for Obama as something other than an "avalanche" then that is your concern. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Since it was 96% in 2008 I would say that he underperformed. Arzel (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The text in bold comes directly from the source. Where exactly is there synthesis?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The synthesis stems from the context in which you place the qouted material. Placing it where it is gives the (erroneous) implication that the poll numbers reflect feelings on the rape issue (and that everyone voted the way they did because of the rape issue). Including the poll in this context ignores the fact that both men and women may have voted as they did due to issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the rape issue. (for example... I am sure that many of those who voted for Romney, supported Obama's stance on the abortion/rape issue. They voted for Romney based on other considerations that they considered more important, such as the economy. Alternatively, I am sure that there were ardent pro-life advocates - people who strongly believe that abortion is morally wrong no matter what - who voted for Obama despite disagreeing with his stance on the rape issue, because they agreed with him on other issues). Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
The use of any of these statistics is WP:SYN, unless a WP:RS makes the argument using them. Even in that case, the article should state," _________, stated that ...... ". I think this is a clear case of WP:SYN and the solution is somewhat obvious, once suggested. Casprings (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Are we talking about Ref 9 all by its lonesome, or is the issue Ref 9 + Ref 10 = synth?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It might make more sense if you re-examine the edit. The section already included the exit poll numbers from 2012. I added the additional text which included the 2008 results. Casprings and others seem to want to include the 2012 exit poll results without the 2008 results to imply that there was an effect. Arzel (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Both the 2012 and 2008 results are from ref 9. What implication would be made if both years are used?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, and that is the point. Originally, just the 2012 results were being used to imply an implication. This is all pretty much a moot point now as Casprings has acknowledged that his origianl edit was misleading. Arzel (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems Casprings is objecting to an analysis (secondary source) that IS supported by statistics (a good thing) while wanting to cite every unsupported opinion that some effect MAY have happened. Overall, all the negative campaigning undeniably drove DOWN participation, most notably in a few races. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Casprings originally added this section to promote the idea that this had an effect, and is now bitching about Original Research after I added the additional information. Arzel (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there some problem with the current edit? You should take your questioning of WP:GF elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 02:23, December 2, 2012‎

The article includes all of the US 2012 elections, not just the presidential election. Any subgroup of election results cannot be used to describe the whole election in general. The Obama–Romney race stats cannot tell us how the Republicans fared in general, nor can presidential election results from 2008 tell us about rape and pregnancy controversies from 2012. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is still a well sourced section on wider impacts. THat still could be expanded.Casprings (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Far Cry 3 Plot Summary

User:Kurzon has removed the existing, sourced, plot summary [43] in favour of his or her preferred interpretation of the plot not sourced by reliable third party sources as it was initially.

My argument is thus:

The game itself is not a valid reliable source. First-party information (i.e. the game itself) then synthesized in to a plot summary is original research.

This is neatly encapsulated in the following paragraph from WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material."

The existing plot summary is appropriately sourced, hence the general hostility to the removal of that content. It appears that this is an attempt to push a preferred interpretation of the plot over the existing, appropriate, content. Whilst this may gain one XP in the Wikipedia MMORPG, it doesn't actually help with the whole encyclopedia thing.

In addition, were it ever appropriate for a user to erase another's interpretation of a plot (from a primary source) with their own interpretation of a plot (from a primary source), we would be in never-ending revert wars as everyone tried to get their version of the plot in to an article. That's just not how Wikipedia works. If we took this bizarre concept to its conclusion, I would be perfectly legitimately able to remove his/her plot summary with my plot summary, then John Smith would replace my plot summary with their plot summary and then the madness would descend upon the world and all would be swallowed in its wake.

I don't believe the argument put forward that other stuff exists with this issue is valid. Particularly when you consider we already had third-party sourced information that was removed in favour of this content. -Rushyo Talk 18:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, plot summaries do not require additional sources as long as no interpretive claims are made. It is assumed that the work itself is the source, though editors are encouraged to try to include points of reference where such events may occur (in video games this may be the level name where it happens, for example). If additional third-party sources can be found, great, they should be added (I was able to source the entire plot of Portal 2 that way), but it is a fallacy to say that primary sources cannot be used for plot summaries. The removal of the sources of the plot for Far Cry 3 here is probably not a good thing, but that doesn't mean a new summary can be written around those sources.
This does not speak to whether the new summary in this article is introducing interpretive claims or not; if it is, then either that has to be sourced to a third-party/secondary source, or removed. An interpretion cannot be made on the primary source only (eg: the fact the top wobbles at the end of Inception cannot be used to push the idea the end was in a dream state or not). --MASEM (t) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
If there is no new interpretation then there is no need to completely replace the original, supported, plot summary with one that has less content. If there is a new interpretation then it falls foul as discussed. Either way, why erase the existing content and replace it? No rationale has been put forward for the removal, merely the adding. If we take it in context of an addition then of course it's implied what the source is but when we're deleting content we need a rationale that supports it. Gaming the WP:3RR (see my talk page) to keep it there means the editor obviously thinks it is a better interpretation but provides no justification why. -Rushyo Talk 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It roughly boils down to: If the original summary was legitimate then there's no reason to replace it with something with less content that doesn't involve a re-interpretation or something even less encyclopaedic (like WP:OWN). -Rushyo Talk 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Arguably - looking at the changes - the original summary is no longer appropriate for a video game article for a game that has been released; we can use a more detailed story as the type that Kurzon is writing towards (again, no comment on interpretation since I haven't played it yet), while the sources in the current version can used as backup, or, at least as I read them, describing the game's development. The key point is that the game is out, so the game itself is now a legit primary source for the plot summary as long as it is not interpolating new conclusions. (If the game wasn't out, it would be an entirely different ballgame). --MASEM (t) 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair point. I personally doubt that was the editor's intent as he or she would have made it clear, but that does adequately provide a reason. In fact I take that back. It was weakly implied when he or she initially opened up the debate.-Rushyo Talk 20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I do agree to the point that the sources should be kept and reused in the plot if they can. Alternatively, and again, not having played the game yet so I can't call which way is best, one could have an intro paragraph to describe the setting which would incorporate one or more of the original sources, before jumping into the events of the plot. But the sources should be reused whereever possible. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Rushyo has never read an article on a movie or videogame. This is the norm for plot summaries. If you wanted to revert the Far Cry 3 summary you're going to have to do it for every article on a movie or novel or game out there.Kurzon (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Other stuff exists. WP:Verifiability allows for implicit assumption of the source but it does not permit people to just blanket remove content in favour of their own interpretations of primary sources. It's a good thing I'm not pointy or I'd have a field day replacing every single plot summary for every single game or film without justification. The idea is absurd. You need to have a reason for removing content other than wanting your content in over somebody else's. The fact that the thing you are replacing it with is valid is not sufficient argument. You need to actually be adding something to the article, not merely replacing it with your own preferred text. -Rushyo Talk 20:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.svg

The iconic File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.svg graphic representing Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has been inappropriately altered to reflect the editor's original research, as described by the editor's file history comment. Please revert the graphic to the previous version. The Maslow's hierarchy of needs Wikipedia article correctly states "Maslow's theory was fully expressed in his 1954 book Motivation and Personality." Supporting quotes from this primary source are:

"Sex may be studied as a purely physiological need." (Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. pp 44.)

"We cannot identify all physiological needs as homeostatic. That sexual desire, sleepiness, sheer activity and exercise, and maternal behavior in animals are homeostatic has not yet been demonstrated." (Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. pp 36.)

"In the previous chapter it was pointed out that these physiological drives or needs are to be considered unusual rather than typical because they are isolable, and because they are localizable somatically. This is to say, they are relatively independent of each other, of other motivations, and of the organism as a whole, and second, in many cases, it is possible to demonstrate a localized, underlying somatic base for the drive. This is true less generally than has been thought (exceptions are fatigue, sleepiness, maternal responses) but it is still true in the classic instances of hunger, sex and thirst." (Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. pp 36.)

"For the man who is extremely and dangerously hungry, no other interest exist but food. He dreams food, he remembers food, he thinks about food, he emotes only about food, he perceives only food, and he wants only food. The more subtle determinants that ordinarily fuse with the physiological drives in organizing even feeding, drinking, or sexual behavior, may now be so completely overwhelmed as to allow us to speak at this time (but only at this time) of pure hunger drive and behavior, with the one unqualified aim of relief." (Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. pp 37.)

"Another type of data supporting the relationship between need gratification and character formation is available in the directly observable clinical effects of gratification. Such data are available to every person working directly with people, and can be confidently expected in almost every therapeutic contact.

"The easiest way to convince ourselves of this is to examine the direct and immediate effects of gratification of the basic needs, beginning with the most potent. So far as the physiological needs are concerned, we in our culture do not regard as character traits, food satiation or water satiation, although under other cultural conditions we might. Even at this physiological level, however, we get some borderline cases for our thesis. Certainly, if we may speak of the needs for rest and sleep, we may therefore also speak of their frustration and its effects (sleepiness, fatigue, lack of energy, loginess, perhaps even laziness, lethargy, etc.), and gratification (alertness, vigor, rest, etc.). Here are immediate consequences of simple need gratification which, if they be not accepted character traits, are at least of definite interest to the student of personality. And while we are not accustomed yet to thinking so, the same can be said for the sex need, e.g., the category sex-obsessed and the contrasting one of sex-gratification for which we have as yet no respectable vocabulary. " (Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper. pp 65-66.)

Further, this exact question was discussed in Talk:Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the consensus was that the primary source indicates sex is a physiological need.

--72.79.230.226 (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The literature acknowledges that sex is not necessary for the survival of the individual but that it is of course crucial to the survival of the species. The presence of sex in the graphic is debatable. The article text should cover the debate. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The same literature you cite states that sex is a generally accepted physiological need. Should Wikipedia censor all generally accepted information that is "debatable"? --72.79.230.226 (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The question, of course, is whether Maslow's hierarchy is applicable to the individual or to the species. Many of our sources discuss only the individual, who is not at any danger of survival related to sex. Binksternet (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We should be extremely wary of OR in representing the diagram in any modified form from that which it was originally published. It seems very clear from the above that Maslow considered sex to be physiological need. Furthermore, Moslow's hierarchy is not intended as a road atlas of all needs, which is important. Some needs do not fit within the hierarchy, including needs which he may have discussed in his writings. I think the second quote produced above is important. By "homeostatic", Maslow means needs whose absence creates appetite (e.g. not eating makes me hungry). This feeds into Maslow's theory, because it is about unsatiated appetites pre-occupying our motivation (so that we find it more difficult to progress to addressing higher needs). In other words, a homeostatic need, in Maslow's words, is the same as a "deficiency need" as described in the article. If it is not clear that sex is a deficiency need, then it is not clear that it belongs in the triangle. And, because Maslow himself did not put it there, we should not presume to. Formerip (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited source is wrong because the triangle diagram did not appear in Motivation and Personality by A. Maslow. The triangle diagram itself is a generally accepted derivative work. Yes, it is very clear that Maslow considered sex to be physiological need. By your argument re. the second quote above, if sex does not belong in the triangle then neither does sleep. Shall we all just agree to censor this generally accepted diagram because -- like so many medieval Catholic popes lopping off sculptures and fig-leaving over paintings containing any hint of sex -- some of our opinions differ from the original source? --72.79.230.226 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing "iconic" about an artistic interpretation of Maslow's hierarchy represented as a triangle or pyramid. Maslow never interpreted his own hierarchy as a triangle or pyramid. Others did, though, and they usually count sex as a basic need, at the bottom of the pyramid. For instance: "Although Maslow (1954) did not specifically identify the physiological needs, they are generally accepted to be the needs of oxygen, food, water, rest (sleep)/activity (exercise), and sex." Here's another interpretation listing "Oxygen, food, elimination, temperature control, sex, movement, rest, comfort". Here one more listing "Hunger, thirst, sex, sleep, air, etc." With these and more as evidence, I have surfed over to Commons and reverted the image to its previous "sex"-inclusive state. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

New contributor insisting that WP:OR doesn't apply to them because they are a medical professional

User:Angelatomato has been very insistent about publishing her view that Peyronie's disease and Koro are linked, despite providing no articles that connect the two. This post by the user on my talk page sums it up pretty well:

Regarding the "synth" issue - here is the connection: Patients are sent to psychologists who "think" their penises are shrinking and that they have a "version of penis panic" by primary care physicians. These patients do not know what Peyronie's disease is - and neither do their doctors (it is very rare and hard to diagnose at first). I know this is sounding like "original research" here but there are simply no published papers on the number of medical practitioners who refer patients to psychologists who think their penises are shrinking. Sorry - there just are none and will never be any. There is not a published source for every clinical occurrence out there. Such an expectation is impossible. Thus, clinical experience prevails where empirical research does not exist in medical practice. Besides, I do not need a citation for the Synth at all (per the guidelines). My own experience with these 2 conditions & pure logic make the connection obvious. I still cited published sources that were relevant. '`'

She has opened up discussions elsewhere on the topic, but since WP:OR is the core policy being violated, this is the most relevant place for input from other editors. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Koro (medicine) in fact.--ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples

There is currently an edit-war at List of indigenous peoples about the inclusion of Israelis and to a lesser extent Palestinian people. There have been a few references provided (see below) - however some editors believe they do not qualify as proper references under the current inclusion criteria for the page as defined in the lead AND/OR that the conclusions inferred by the genetic and biblical references are original research (way this is here). Looking for outside input on the situation that has lead to an ongoing edit war. pls comment at Talk:List of indigenous peoples#Israelis and Palestinian.Moxy (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no edit war regarding the inclusion of the Palestinian people. On the talk page I said that technically in terms of RS, we have sources that include them as an indigenous people of that land. There are no sources that state that the present Jewish population of Israel is an indigenous people, since the demographics of modern immigration from the diaspora are minutely known. It is wholly immaterial to the article that Jews have ME gene markers, since 'indigeneity' as is clearly set forth in the Ist para of the lead of the article, is a loose political, fuzzy anthropological term, referring to an ethno-cultural minority incorporated into a state ruled by a different population that constitutes a majority of the modern state. This cannot fit Israelities, nor Israelis. The genetic evidence is irrelevant to the issue, and is being used to construct inferences about 'indigenous' origins, as though this were identical to indigeneity as a modern concept regarding negelected ethnic minorities.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Original research in Vitamin B12 deficiency: Epidemiology

Greetings,

Can someone help me determine whether the following passage in the Vitamin B12 deficiency article (Epidemiology) constitutes an WP:Original Research problem?

The passage:

"In the developing world the deficiency is very widespread, with significant levels of deficiency in Africa, India, and South and Central America. This is theorized to be due to low intakes of animal products, particularly among the poor,[65] though data from WHO publications on world food consumption point to a large deficiency of poor populations in consuming adequate amounts of fresh fruit and vegetables, which carry B12 from bacteria in the soil they are grown in, so this is likely a primary cause as well, since vitamin B12 does not originate from animal sources and can be obtained without consuming animal products.[66]"

The 1st citation is taken from a passage that follows it in the article and has nothing do with this passage, and the 2nd citation contains not even a mention of B12. (I read the whole 9 page document.) When I tried to get rid of the passage, it was restored with the instistence that it "summarizes the direct statement" of the source. Lol, am I a retard, or does this constitute Original Research?

Thanks, David. David Martin Zeegen Roth (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem in Israel and the Palestinian territories

An editor has challenged that the following sources support the phrase Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories on the grounds that is WP:SYNTH. Our article on Jerusalem covers East Jerusalem as well. The sources presented are:

Imseis, Ardi. "On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Harv. Int'l LJ 44 (2003): 65

... the State of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, collectively known as the Occupied Palestinian Territory

and

Orna Ben-Naftali, Aeyal M. Gross, and Keren Michaeli, Illegal Occupation: Framing the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 23 Berkeley Journal of International Law. 551 (2005), p. 551:

In August 2005, Israel pulled out its settlements and military forces from the Gaza Strip. The question whether this amounts to the end of the occupation in this area remains open and its determination depends on factual and legal considerations relating to the notion of "effective control," which are beyond the scope of this article. Even if one assumes that Gaza is no longer occupied, our discussion applies to the rest of the Palestinian territory, which Israel continues to occupy, i.e. the West Bank including East Jerusalem, which constitutes a far more substantial area both in terms of territory and the extent of Jewish settlements.

The user has said that despite our article covering East Jerusalem, these two quotes say something about East Jerusalem, not Jerusalem, and that such a use is OR by SYNTH. Is it synthesis to use these two sources to say that Jerusalem is partially in the Palestinian territories? nableezy - 21:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I said the source does not support the statement you wanted to put in the article. Seems pretty obvious it doesn't. We'll see what others say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I've just become involved on the Talk page of the article in question, but for what it's worth, this would also seem to relate to the syntax of presenting the information contained in the sources. Since the scope of what can be referred to as "Israel" and the "Palestinian territories" constitutes part of the core of the dispute regarding Jerusalem, the statement is formulated in a somewhat dysfunctional manner as it precludes explication of the terms used in a manner that opens the discursive horizon of their interrelatedness and facilitates the associated problems of definition.
If the statement is used to introduce the material, the terms used to frame the issues should not embody entities that would presuppose a forgone conclusion as to the disposition of the contested status. With respect to the status of Jerusalem, "Israel" and the "Palestinian territories" are both political entities that are in a state of flux to one degree or another, and when the conflict there is resolved, it is likely that the "Palestinian territories" will have become a "State of Palestine". There is also the point that the sources use "East Jerusalem" as a proper noun.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
not related to the question of OR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What you said was By the way, your source says something about East Jerusalem (seems like a proper noun with all the capitalization there), not about Jerusalem, which may or may not include the part your source is talking about. Unfortunately your source doesn't specify. No SYNTH or OR please. Though thanks for no longer denying that you said what I attributed to you. nableezy - 21:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
A no-brainer. Nableezy is correct. If commonsense needs to be annotated, as it often does in the source-challenged I/P area,

.The fourth region in the West Bank is the city of Jerusalem and its surroundings . . . Municipal Jerusalem includes approximately 17,500 acres (70,000 dunams) of the West Bank . .Approximately 9 per cent, 1,500 acres (6,000 dunams), of this area formed part of Jordanian East Jerusalem, while the remaining 91 per cent belonged to 28 villages in this area.. Settlements there are perceived by most of the Jewish public in Israel, and by the government, as constituting an integral part of the State of Israel.' Elisha Efrat, The West Bank And Gaza Strip: A Geography of Occupation and Disparagement, Routledge 2006 p.98

The social and family ties of East Jerusalemites ar woven with the fabric of life in the rest of the West Bank.'(2)Many Jerusalemites live in the West Bank, and those who do not, almost without exception, have strong business, family, and social relations with the rest of the West Bank.' Jonathan Kuttub and Claude Klein, 'Access to Jerusalem and the Holy Places,' in Moshe Ma'oz and Sari Nusseibeh (eds.) Jerusalem: Points of Friction, Kluwer, 2000 pp.67-72. p.67, p.71 Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"No brainier" indeed. Those sources talk about the West Bank, not "the Palestinian territories". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Good, so you're fine with Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the West Bank, which is of course one of the Palestinian territories, source-based, and not subject to synth objections. Why didn't you say that in the first place? A quick efficient and amenable conclusion to wikilawyering pettifoggery.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Spare me your stupid accusations. Nableezy said he deliberately did not use "West Bank". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Would you be OK with "West Bank"? --Dailycare (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
That isnt really a relevant question. nableezy - 04:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd be OK with you guys letting some uninvolved editors address this question. I've been accused of not basing my objection on policy and I'd like to hear what uninvolved people think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
You set the precedent.
Jerusalem is a city in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
In Seddon's dictionary of the Middle East under the voice Jerusalem, the entry immediately begins with the following statement, which refuses to accept that 'Jerusalem' is one entity.

'A divided city, West Jerusalem is within Israeli territory; East Jerusalem, with a population of about 300,000, is internationally recognized as Palestinian territory, but remains under Israeli rule.'. David Seddon,A Political and Economic Dictionary of the Middle East: An Essential Guide to the Politics and Economics of the Middle East, Taylor & Francis 2004 p 347

Nableezy's formulation, you say, is not backed by his sources. Your WP:SYNTH claim is pettifogging, because many sources make it clear that Jerusalem is a divided city in territorial terms. It is certainly backed, under any reasonable reading, by this entry in Seddon, as a perfectly legitimate paraphrase. Tell me why that statement supplied by Nableezy is now untenable as a fair source-based assessment of the city's realities?Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
To be fair to NMMNG, I'd like to get some uninvolved commentary as well. Nish, I dont think this is a case that needs all this effort to prove, Im still chuckling at it even being raised to begin with. But lets see if we can get some outside perspective here, which based on the size of this section already probably isnt going to happen. nableezy - 04:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do official UN publications recognizing Palestinians as indigenous peoples mandate their inclusion of Palestinians?

I hope that I'm on the right page here.

User:Dailycare has presented two documents that are official publications of the UN in response to the RfC: Should the Palestinians be included on the list on the basis of tacit UN recognition since at least 2009? I filed on 14 December 2012.

This RFC is about whether the Palestinians should be added, not whether Jews are indigenous. Concerning the Palestinians, they're described as indigenous at least here: Bedouin Palestinians and this document (THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE) seems to repeatedly refer to the Palestinians as a whole as the indigenous population of Palestine. Based on these sources, I'd say that the UN does consider the Palestinians indigenous, which seems to be even a slightly obvious point. --Dailycare (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,MRGI,,YEM,,49749c7dc,0.html[User talk:Dailycare|talk]]) 15:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Another User:Evildoer187 has been demonstrating what seems to be a basically irrational response to the sources, repeatedly labeling one of them as OR, while claiming that the other is inadmissible because it is "outdated", having been published in 1981, "more than a decade before the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues was established".

The RfC was filed on the basis of my discovery of a list of topics on the UNPFII webpage that basically corresponds to Chapters I-VI of the total of VII chapters comprising the SOWIP report of 2009, in which two distinct references are made, one with regard to Palestinian Arabs and the other Bedouin Arabs, in Israel as indigenous peoples. Since the website and report are both published by the same UN body, the are correlated sources, which seemed to indicate at least tacit recognition.

Another User:Moxy had early posted a comment that,

As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

but he seems to have difficulty in acknowledging the sources presented by Dailycare as fulfilling that criteria--whatever relevance the criteria may or may not have.

The RfC has gone somewhat quite, with fewer comments from a smaller sampling of editors than I had hoped, so any input would be welcome. The topic is obviously controversial, but I don't think that justifies the ignoring of viable sources such as the UN publications submitted for comment. --Ubikwit (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

ResearchGate

It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section do not meet WP:OR and other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:

Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam.[10] If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.

User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers.[11] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[12] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.

RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less.[13] Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%.[14].

In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.

Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this is only one of at least four noticeboards on which JNorman704 has posted his grievance. My take on the situation is here. For simplicity and centralization, I recommend that further conversation simply take place at Talk:ResearchGate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Science as a religion

An editor, Timpo, insists on claiming that science "can be considered a religion" (in several different phrasings so far, but the implication is the same) in the Religious offense article (section: Science). We keep going back and forth with it, with me tagging and editing and him/her untagging with what I think are minor changes and don't really take care of the issue. There's discussion in several sections here Talk:Religious_offense#References. I think the main problem is that Timpo thinks that the ref s/he provided (a writing by Richard Dawkins) is sufficient to make the statements, while I think it's original research/improper synthesis. We're just repeating the same stuff at each other now and Timpo has resorted to policing my tone, so I'd like someone neutral to have a look over this issue. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a rather uninformed POV, but you might want to check Thomas Kuhn, if your not already familiar with the author.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Calling an allegation a "claim"

collapsed section by blocked sock per WP:DENY

The dispute concerns an online petition which allege some things about certain clinics in Ecuador. I want those allegations to be preceded by "they claim" so that Wikipedia doesn't present the opinion of the authors of the source as fact. The source: [44] The edit history of the dispute with MrX: [45] Here is the discussion with MrX: [46] Zaalbar (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Petitions on change.org are basically user-submitted content which is intentionally running in the opposite direction from WP:NPOV. (They're not trying to describe a situation neutrally, they're trying to get people angry enough to sign a petition). So, it's not just an OR problem - we should be very careful about using that as a source for anything. bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I suggest the discussion be carried on at Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Ecuador#Self-revert before it is brought here. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:CLAIM may also be helpful. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

So should the allegations in the petition be removed because of POV issues or should they be preceded by "allege", not "claim"? Zaalbar (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as we are examining NPOV issues and not NOR issues, I do need to point out one thing... re: "user-submitted content which is intentionally running in the opposite direction from WP:NPOV"... It is important to remember that sources are allowed to have a POV and are not subject to Wikipedia's NPOV policy... the point of our NPOV policy is to say that we (Wikipedia editors) are not supposed to insert our own POV into our articles. That means we must represent all of the various points of view and biases that exist in our sources with neutrality. Now... part of presenting things with neutrality is assigning things DUE WEIGHT. We have to ask: Do the allegations made on the website represent the view of a tiny minority or a more mainstream views. If the former, then we should probably not mention them at all. If the latter then we should mention them as being the opinion of a certain person or group (and attributing that opinion in the article text). In that case, it is something of a judgement call as to whether to use "allege" or "claim"... other phrases can be used as well (such as: "X is of the opinion that blah blah blah" or "X believes that blah blah blah" or "according to X, blah blah blah"... etc.) Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, inserting wording for "claimed", "alleged" or similar would just need evidence to be brought forward showing that the existence of the starving, abuse and torture is reasonably disputed. Formerip (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are follow up sources with information regarding these clinics so I think the petition should stay. However, from the sources it's clear that not all of the 200 clinics are known for torturing, as only a few have been closed down and there have only been former patient complaints from some of them. I'll put in "allege" since it's clearly disputed that all 200 clinics are known for "starving, abusing, and torturing patients". Zaalbar (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If the torture etc undoubtedly happened but only at some clinics, the correct thing to do is to use the clarifying phrase "some clinics", rather than "claimed". Formerip (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
True, but the source claims over 200 clinics, while the other sources used show that only a fraction of them have been shown to be. Therefore the claims in the source either has to be removed or clearly shown to be only an allegation. Zaalbar (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
So the article should give the full picture: ...some clinics, claimed by Organisation X to be as many as 200, although only a fraction of this number has been officially recognised (or something like that). Formerip (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. I can't make the change though since I've already done 3 reverts on that page so close together. Zaalbar (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
If you wish to rewrite this content to add weasel words such as claim, allege, purport, etc. you need to produce sources to support the dubiousness you are trying to introduce. There are several sources (besides change.org), from credible news organizations, that corroborate the material as it is written. We don't get to decide on our own that we doubt the reliable sources and then introduce that doubt into articles in Wikipedia to push an a particular point of view, which by the way, you seem to be trying to do in a number of LGBT related articles. - MrX 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Please look up a definition of "weasel words". You keep getting the definition wrong and it's interfering with your editing. Attributing an opinion by a specific group as an opinion of that specific group is not using weasel words. I don't need to produce sources because none of the sources used in the article allege that there are over 200 clinics which are known for "starving, abusing, and torturing patients". That is a claim only in the petition.
Can somebody revert MrX? The article has been representing an opinion as fact for too long now. Zaalbar (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Claims/facts based on silly messages on Twitter

It would be interesting with your expert opinions in the discussion on Talk:Beneath Your Beautiful. Thanks. Nording (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

SYNTH question regarding meanings of foreign words

There is a minor content dispute over at Kuroneko. The article is about a Japanese film named Yabu no naka no kuroneko in Japanese, and simply Kuroneko in English. WP:NCFILM says that we should include a translation of the titles of foreign films in cases where the English title is not already a translation, even when no literal translation has appeared in reliable sources.

The dispute rises from the meaning of the phrase yabu no naka. It technically means "in the middle of a bamboo grove", but in everyday Japanese usage it means "an inability to discern the truth of a matter; mysterious; obscure".[47][48][49] The idiomatic usage is derived from Akutagawa Ryūnosuke's story In a Grove, and predates the film by several decades.

The user on the other side of this dispute has insisted that I need a reliable source that links the phrase yabu no naka to the film or else it is SYNTH[50], but this seems a bit unreasonable, since the phrase is part of the title of the film.

Any objective input would be most appreciated.

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A glance at the plot summary will demonstrate the film is set in a bamboo grove. The bamboo is a major visual motif of the film. However, originally I tagged the article with the "original research" tag because the user claimed that the title of the film was a reference to the Akutagawa story, not because of his fanciful translation. I believe that claim that it is named after the story is a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The "fanciful translation" is the most intuitive translation of the title to any Japanese-speaker. Yes, much of the film does take place in a bamboo grove -- so what? The title still means what it means, and can be interpreted one of two ways; to insist on one interpretation over the other is POV and requires a reliable source. Providing a gloss for English-speaking readers as to exactly what the title means is not OR or SYNTH. And the origin of the phrase yabu no naka is a reference to the Akutagawa story, and this etymology is included in most good dictionary entries for the phrase (see Daijisen cited above). I never claimed that the film's title is derived from the Akutagawa story, and the article's current wording clearly states such.[51] JS has indicated several times in this dispute that what he believes is SYNTH is not the Akutagawa reference but the translation itself.
However, it does seem entirely possible that this is all a misunderstanding: JS, if I were to remove any reference to the Akutagawa story from the article and merely leave the translation as is, would you be content? We can discuss whether an etymology of the title is appropriate or not at a later date, but I would be perfectly happy to drop this issue if it turned out it was all a misunderstanding.
elvenscout742 (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should discuss issues about the article on the article page itself. This is a noticeboard for discussing claims of original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
But you just re-added the original research tag to the article itself. I have removed the text that you said was original research, and you re-tagged the basic definition of the phrase as original research. Now I am not even sure what you are referring to. Admittedly, the wording of the definition I give is not exactly the same as that given by Breen, but that's not "original research" so much as a dubious interpretation of the source. We could just use Daijisen, though. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Guy, the film is about a (demonic) black cat which exists in a bamboo grove. "yabu no naka no kuroneko" literally means "black cat in a grove" where "grove" in Japan suggests bamboo grove. Now you want to change this title to "mysterious cat" on the basis of your analysis that "yabu no naka" means "mysterious" rather than "in a grove". Presented with overwhelming evidence that your analysis of the Japanese term is completely wrong, you claim that the native speakers who disagree with you are being ironic or satirical, and you go on trying to force a completely unsupported claim into an article without references or support and you wonder why I tag your claims with original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have collapsed the above discussion, since it took place at a time when I thought my fellow editor was open to constructive discussion and compromise. However, he has since posted a couple of sarcastic remarks[52][53] on the article's talk page and removed my edit entirely[54] based on his opinion that the title doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means. The normal Japanese word for a bamboo grove is takebayashi. It is obvious that the reason the film is not called Takebayashi no kuroneko or Takebayashi no naka no kuroneko or even Yabu no kuroneko is that yabu no naka specifically has another meaning. Any objective input on this issue would be most welcome. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion can be considered resolved. I still think it is not SYNTH to cite the dictionary definition of a common phrase when translating a title, and JS apparently still thinks it is. But I have found a reliable source that goes much further in the analysis than I wanted to, and re-added it to the article. I hope this will be the end of JS's WP:HOUNDing me on this particular article. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_24&oldid=1195153255"